HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes
PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 7, 2002 PRESENT: Lee Bettes, Lurton Blassingame, Jon Dell’Antonia, Donald Krueger, Donald Pressley, Achim Reschenberg, John Ruppenthal, and David Borsuk,
Chairman EXCUSED: Steve Gehling, Jack Heinemann, and Fred Timmerman STAFF: Darryn Burich, Principal Planner; Jackson Kinney, Director of Community Development, and Vickie Rand, Recording
Secretary The meeting was called to order by Chairman Borsuk. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. The minutes of April 16, 2002 were approved as mailed (Krueger/Blassingame).
Unanimous. Chairman Borsuk welcomed Jon Dell’Antonia to the Plan Commission as the City Council Representative. I: PRIVILEGE IN STREET AT THE INTERSECTION OF 23RD AVE AND MINNESOTA ST.
Meyer Services Inc., petitioner for Oshkosh Truck, owner, requests the Plan Commission to review and approve a privilege in street for the placement of communication cable conduit under
City right of way generally located near the intersection of 23rd Avenue and Minnesota Street. There was no discussion on the Consent Agenda. Motion by Ruppenthal for approval of the
Consent Agenda with the following conditions: 1) The conduit be installed in a manner that is approved by the Department of Public Works. 2) If no longer needed the conduit to be properly
abandoned and removed in accordance with City standards and under the direction of the Department of Public Works. 3) Any problem which may arise as a result of the conduit be the responsibility
of the petitioner to correct in coordination with the Department of Public Works. 4) All appropriate permits be obtained prior to installation. 5) The conduit be modified or removed
immediately upon the request of the City.
Plan Commission Minutes Page 2 May 7, 2002 6) The petitioner/owner secures and submits to the City Clerk a separate insurance policy which names the City as an additional insured with
a minimum coverage of $200,000 per person and $500,000 in general aggregate. 7) It is the responsibility of the petitioner/owner to file in a timely manner a new insurance certificate
with the City Clerk upon expiration of an existing certificate. Failure to do so will result in the revocation of the privilege in street within ten (10) days of notice. 8) The petitioner/owner
execute a hold harmless agreement with the City. 9) Privilege in street be granted for the 23rd Avenue right of way only. Seconded by Blassingame. Motion carried 8-0. II: NORTH WASHBURN
STREET ANNEXATION Arthur Pommerening, petitioner/owner, request Plan Commission review and approval of the North Washburn Annexation for three properties along Washburn Street in the
Town of Algoma. Temporary and permanent zoning of C-2 General Commercial District with a Highway 41 Corridor Overlay has been requested. The subject properties contain a small strip
mall and an occupied single family structure that is scheduled to be razed or removed from the site this year. Mr. Blassingame questioned if there were any alterations made to the environmental
regulations for this Annexation to occur? Mr. Burich replied there weren’t any changes to the environmental regulations. Motion by Pressley for approval of the North Washburn Street
Annexation with temporary and permanent zoning of C-2 General Commercial District with a Highway 41 Corridor Overlay. Seconded by Reschenberg. Motion carried 8-0. III: FINAL PLAT – PARKVIEW
HEIGHTS/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Reinhard Roehlig, petitioner for D & F Investments, owner, request Plan Commission review and approval of a Final Plat known
as Parkview Heights for property generally located south of Sunnyview Road and east of Jackson Street (USH 45). Because the subject property is split zoned between R-3PD Multiple Family
District with a Planned Development Overlay, C-1PD Neighborhood Commercial District with a Planned Development Overlay and R-2 Two Family Residence District, a Planned Development Review/Conditional
Use Permit (CUP) must be issued. Mr. Bettes questioned if the Oshkosh School District has verified capacity available for children who will reside in this new subdivision. Mr. Burich
stated that he has been informed by a representative of the Oshkosh School District that the school district has capacity district wide to accommodate new development. Troy Engelman,
48 Kope Avenue, questioned what access will be available until Soda Creek Road is completed.
Plan Commission Minutes Page 3 May 7, 2002 Kelly Claflin, Portside Properties, stated access would be available through Jacktar Road. Gary Schultz, 150 Kope Avenue, questioned the easement
for access to Winnebago County Park, noting that it appeared to be on his property. He stated it was noted on his deed that an easement for public utilities only, existed on his property,
and that any access to the County Park would be part of lot 18 on the Final Plat. Mr. Kinney stated the Plan Commission could only relate to issues of the Final Plat at this time, and
an easement for a 15’ access to Winnebago County Park is designated on lot 18, which had been changed from an 8’ easement on the Preliminary Plat. Mr. Schultz also questioned the fence
proposed along his lot line. Mr. Burich stated a condition had been made in the Preliminary Plat for an access easement, buffered from Kope Avenue residents by a 6 foot wood fence, be
provided on the south side of lot 29 to provide pedestrian access to Winnebago County Park, and that a covenant be placed on the face of the Final Plat which stipulates that owners of
the property within the Plat are responsible for maintaining the easement. Natalie Engelman, 48 Kope Avenue, questioned if any construction vehicles would be traveling on Kope Avenue,
and if Kope Avenue would be open to residents upon completion of the development. Dennis Schwab, D & F Investments, 601-B Oregon Street, stated Kope Avenue was privately owned by D &
F Investments. He stated the property owners have an easement to use Kope Avenue to access Jackson Street. He also stated he didn’t intend to use Kope Avenue as a construction route.
Mr. Burich also mentioned condition number 6 in the Staff Report referred to the connection of Kellybrook Drive to Kope Avenue, and for the developer to be responsible for the construction
of public improvements to Kope Avenue. Mr. Kinney stated the use of Kope Avenue was a legal issue between the developer and the property owners. Mr. Krueger questioned if it was desirable
to have a driveway from outlot 1 to Jackson Street. Mr. Kinney stated outlot 1 will contain a commercial lot that would have Jackson Street access, but wouldn’t feed traffic to the residential
properties. Motion by Ruppenthal for approval of the Final Plat known as Parkview Heights for property generally located south of Sunnyview Road and east of Jackson Street (USH 45),
and a Planned Development Review/Conditional Use Permit subject to the following conditions: 1) The developer be responsible for all capital improvement costs incurred by this development.
2) Garden Place Lane be changed to Soda Creek Road. 3) The owner provide the City with all easements as required by the Department of Public Works to install and maintain sewer and water
utilities and implement storm water drainage plans. 4) Pedestrian easement be widened for a total of 15 feet in width not 8 feet as proposed on the Final Plat.
Plan Commission Minutes Page 4 May 7, 2002 5) A covenant be placed on the Final Plat making the owners within the plat responsible for maintaining the pedestrian easement that includes
maintenance of the 6 foot high wood fence as well. 6) A Certified Survey Map be drafted to connect Kellybrook Drive outside of this plat to existing Kope Avenue. Kellybrook Drive to
be dedicated as Soda Creek Road and developer responsible to construct public improvements to Kope Avenue. Certified Survey Map and developer agreement to be approved prior to Common
Council taking final action on this plat. 7) Right of way for future street purposes be reserved through Outlot 1 in accordance with the approved Preliminary Plat. 8) A development plan
is approved and CUP issued for the lots zoned R-3 PD within the plat, with the exception of Lot 18 and Outlot 1. 9) The Winnebago County covenant referring to the Town of Algoma be revised.
The standard covenant referring to the City of Oshkosh grading and drainage plan shall be added to the plat. 10) Eliminate temporary turnaround at Lot 18 and at Outlot 1. Seconded by
Blassingame. Motion carried 8-0 IV: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR A MOVIE RENTAL STORE AT 1735 BOWEN STREET Bill Mohler, petitioner for Henry A. Noffke owner,
requests the Plan Commission to review and approve a conditional use permit (CUP)/Planned Development Review for a movie rental store at 1735 Bowen Street. The subject property is zoned
C-2PD General Commercial District with a Planned Development Overlay. Mr. Burich introduced the item noting that additional conditions should be included for a cross access agreement
on the west side of the property line, and for permanent sidewalk easements along Murdock Avenue and Bowen Street. Mr. Burich indicated that the sidewalk easements are needed because
the width of the right of way is substandard in that location and the easements will not affect setbacks of the development. Mr. Ruppenthal questioned where the driveway at the intersection
of Bowen Street and Murdock Avenue would be relocated to. Mr. Burich stated that while the driveway location is in compliance with the current requirement of being forty feet from an
intersection, it would be a better situation if the driveway were moved further to the south to allow for more stacking distance between the driveway and intersection. Mr. Blassingame
questioned how far the entrance of the Piggly Wiggly Grocery Store was from the north side of the subject lot line. Mr. Burich replied it was approximately 150’ from Piggly Wiggly to
the north side of the lot line at 1735 Bowen Street.
Plan Commission Minutes Page 5 May 7, 2002 Bill Mohler, petitioner, stated he was comfortable with all the conditions as outlined in the Staff Report except for relocating the driveway
on Bowen to a more southerly location. He stated a stack up of traffic would occur more often if the driveway were moved further south due to the traffic flow of the interior lot. He
stated the design of the parking lot provides a smooth flow of traffic from where the driveway is proposed on the site plan. Mr. Mohler also questioned what the staff had in mind for
the location of the dumpster. Mr. Burich explained that condition #2, asked for a modification to be granted to allow the dumpster in the proposed location, and condition #3 referred
to the construction materials of the dumpster enclosure and the landscaping around the dumpster. Chairman Borsuk questioned what elevation, as shown on the enclosed map, would face Bowen
Street. Mr. Mohler replied the elevation that had the windows. Discussion followed regarding cross access parking, and the best place for the dumpster. Miriam Scott, 625 Grove Street,
questioned if the video rental store would have pornographic movies available as it does at its other stores. Mr. Borsuk stated that was not an issue under consideration by the Plan
Commission. Mr. Blassingame questioned if any problems with contamination were a factor since a gas station had formerly been located on the site. Mr. Kinney explained that Family Video
most likely has conducted or received the necessary environmental studies in order to proceed. Mr. Mohler stated they had been given closure on the site by the Department of Natural
Resources 12 months ago. Mr. Bettes questioned if any other developers were looking at the general area. He stated he would support the CUP, however, he was concerned about the development
on a corner site hampering a larger development from taking place. Mr. Kinney stated there haven’t been any other proposals for the area brought forward, and he didn’t foresee a large
development taking place in that area in the near future. Discussion continued on the traffic flow in the area, the driveway cuts for the Family Video Store, and cross access availability
on the south and west lot lines. Chairman Borsuk questioned if an additional condition could be made for two cross access agreements. Mr. Krueger asked which site plan the Plan Commission
would be voting on for recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Mohler stated site plan B would seem more logical at this point. Mr. Kinney stated the staff will work with the Department
of Transportation regarding the location of the driveway on Bowen Street. Mr. Krueger stated he felt the driveway should be moved further south to avoid a back up of cars traveling south
on Bowen Street. Mr. Reschenberg alerted the developer to the access of the driveways, noting that proper flaring of the driveways would result in a smoother traffic flow.
Plan Commission Minutes Page 6 May 7, 2002 Motion by Ruppenthal for approval of the Conditional Use Permit/Planned Development for a movie rental store at 1735 Bowen Street found to
be in compliance with the standards of Section 30-11 of the Zoning Ordinance with the following conditions: 1) A landscape plan be submitted and approved by the Department of Community
Development prior to issuance of a building permit. 2) Base standard modifications be granted to allow the placement of a dumpster enclosure in the front yard and a building with a substandard
setback to the rear property line as proposed. 3) Dumpster enclosure to be constructed of decorative type masonry materials with a solid screened gate with enclosure. An enhanced level
of landscaping shall also be placed around the enclosure area. The materials used for construction of the dumpster enclosure and placement and types of landscaping to be approved by
the Department of Community Development. 4) Work with the Department of Community Development and Transportation Department to relocate the proposed driveway from Bowen Street to a more
southerly point along Bowen Street with final approval to be granted by the Department of Community Development. 5) Cross access agreements be provided for the west and south property
lines to provide access to those adjacent areas as they are developed. Said cross access agreement shall be provided by the petitioner or owner prior to issuance of a building permit.
6) Require the dedication of 5 foot of permanent easement for sidewalk purposes along Murdock Avenue and Bowen Street. 7) Driveway accesses to be properly flared to allow for safe ingress
and egress from the site. Seconded by Krueger. Motion carried 8-0. V: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TO CONSTRUCT A DUPLEX AT 901 JACKSON ST. Dave Hansen, petitioner
for Catherine Reinke, et al owners, request Plan Commission review and approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP)/Planned Development Review to construct a duplex at 901 Jackson Street.
The subject property is zoned R-2 PD Two Family Residence District with a Planned Development Overlay. The subject property presently contains a blighted former store, Propson’s Pharmacy,
which has been under orders by the City to be razed. Mr. Burich introduced the item stating that he will continue to work with the petitioner on the parking lot design.
Plan Commission Minutes Page 7 May 7, 2002 Mr. Ruppenthal asked for clarification on the modifications needed. Mr. Burich explained modifications are needed relative to the setbacks
from the adjacent property lines because the proposal request is for a duplex to be constructed on a nonconforming lot. Motion by Pressley for approval of the Conditional Use Permit/Planned
Development to construct a duplex at 901 Jackson Street found in compliance with the standards of Section 30-11 of the Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance with the following conditions: 1) Provision
of a solid wood fence to screen surface parking from adjacent properties. 2) A landscape plan be submitted and approved by the Department of Community Development prior to issuance of
a building permit. 3) Modification of parking lot design to better accommodate vehicle movement, subject to approval by the Department of Community Development. 4) Reduction of the proposed
10' side yard setback on the north side of the building to 5' to increase the front yard yard setback along Scott Ave. from 9' to 14'. 5) Provision of additional design information from
the owner showing locations of utility penetrations are limited to the north and west elevations. 6) Dedication of a permanent five foot wide easement along Jackson Street for sidewalk
purposes. Seconded by Krueger. Motion carried 8-0. VI: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR A 76 UNIT MULTIPLE FAMILY STRUCTURE AND 40 CONDOMINIUM UNITS ON THE NORTH
SIDE OF PATRIOT LANE Carow Land Surveying, petitioner, for Midwest Real Estate Development, owner, requests the Plan Commission to review and approve a conditional use permit (CUP)/Planned
Development Review for the development of a 76 unit multiple family structure and 40 condominium units in seven structures on two separate parcels located generally on the north side
of Patriot Lane. The subject property is zoned R-3PD Multiple Dwelling District with a Planned Development Overlay. The PD Overlay requires that the City review and issue a CUP for development
of the site. Mr. Bettes questioned if the 76 unit multiple family structure was a three story structure similar to the structure he is constructing on Witzel Avenue. Jack Mark, Midwest
Real Estate Development Co., stated the units were identical. Mr. Mark went on to explain how the development layout fit in well with the surrounding area. He discussed the features
of the 76-unit structure being marketed as a senior residence, and felt it would be an asset to the community. He stated he didn’t have any problem with the conditions as stated in the
Staff Report, and added that the additional landscaping should help to market the facility. He stated construction is planned for spring of 2003 for the 76 unit multiple family structure,
and in the summer of 2002 for the 40 condominium units.
Plan Commission Minutes Page 8 May 7, 2002 Mr. Ruppenthal questioned if there was a plan for additional parking stalls if the 76 unit structure changed from a senior residence. Mr. Mark
stated there is a plan which is in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance if the 76 unit structure would change from a senior housing development. Mr. Burich stated condition #5 in the
staff report was designed to address that concern. Chairman Borsuk questioned the value of the 76 unit multiple family structure. Mr. Mark stated it was approximately worth 6 million
dollars. Motion by Pressley for approval of a Conditional Use Permit/Planned Development for the development of a 76 unit multiple family structure and 40 condominium units in seven
structures on two separate parcels located generally on the north side of Patriot Lane, found in compliance with the standards of Section 30-11, and 30-33 of the Zoning Ordinance with
the following conditions: 1) Base standard modification be granted to allow for an access drive with a 10 foot front yard setback for the 76 unit structure. Parking is to be prohibited
in the aisle areas and an enhanced level of landscaping is required in the modification area to be approved by the Department of Community Development. 2) Base standard modification
allowed for the 76 unit structure with a unit density of 1,752 square feet. 3) Base standard modification be allowed for a rear yard setback of the 76 unit structure from the rear lot
of 25 feet as indicated on approved site plan. 4) Areas of base standard modifications to have enhanced levels of landscaping in terms of size and numbers of plantings than required
by the Ordinance with final approval to be granted by the Department of Community Development. 5) No parking base standard modifications are granted with regard to the number of parking
spaces to be provided based on an elderly housing project for the property. Any additional parking lot areas are to be placed in compliance with the base standards of the Zoning Ordinance
and are subject to review and approval by the Department of Community Development. 6) Compliance with City’s grading and drainage requirements. Seconded by Reschenberg. Motion carried
8-0. VII: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE FACILITY AT 742 WITZEL AVE. The Auto Authority, petitioner for the estate of Louis Thoma owner, requests the Plan Commission
to review and approve a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to operate an automobile service facility at 742 Witzel Avenue. The subject property is zoned M-2 Central Industrial District that
allows automobile service facilities through CUP.
Plan Commission Minutes Page 9 May 7, 2002 Chairman Borsuk asked what the minimum required materials were to be used for dust resurfacing. Mr. Burich quoted the Zoning Ordinance stating
the requirements that a minimum include three inches of asphalt. Tom Shepeck, 1018 W. South Park, stated neither he nor the owner was aware of the request for the dedication of 1.5 feet
of land across the front of the property, as outlined in condition 5 of the Staff Report. Mr. Burich stated the request of 1.5’ of land across the front of the property would be used
for a permanent sidewalk easement and would not affect setbacks on the property. Mr. Shepeck stated he couldn’t agree with the condition before he talked to the owners, but seeing that
it was for a sidewalk easement he should be able to resolve the issue before the item goes to council. He also stated the owners of the business were present to answer any questions
the Plan Commission may have. Mr. Dell’Antonia questioned the nature of the business. Mr. Burich stated they were proposing an automotive service facility generally for auto repair work.
Motion by Bettes for approval of a Conditional Use Permit to operate an automobile service facility at 742 Witzel Avenue found in compliance with the standards of Section 30-11 of the
Zoning Ordinance with the following Conditions: 1) No outside storage of inventory, materials, auto parts, or junked vehicles. 2) Signage to be allowed in compliance with 30-37 of the
Zoning Ordinance with no further reviews other than prior to building permit issuance. 3) Dumpster area to be solidly screened and located at the rear, north side of the building. 4)
Parking areas relative to the automotive service facility to be made dust free in accordance with Section 30-36 (C)(3)(a) of the Zoning Ordinance. 5) Require the dedication of 1.5 feet
of permanent easement for sidewalk purposes along Witzel Avenue. Seconded by Krueger. Motion carried 7-1. Nay: Blassingame. VIII: REZONE 605 OAK ST., 1003 E. PARKWAY AVE., AND A PORTION
OF 631 HAZEL ST., CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT, VACATE PORTION OF OAK ST. Ben Ganther, petitioner for Affinity Health Systems Inc., owner,
requests Plan Commission review and approval of several actions relative to redeveloping the former Mercy Medical Hospital site located on Hazel Street. The actions requested involve:
1. A zone change from R-2 Two Family Residence District to R-5PD Multiple Family District with a Planned Development Overlay. 2. Conditional Use Permit (CUP)/Planned Development Review
for a mixed use development.
Plan Commission Minutes Page 10 May 7, 2002 3. Vacate a portion of Oak Street north of Parkway Avenue. Thomas Downing, 1119 E. Parkway Avenue, stated he has lived at this location for
only one year and 11 months. He discussed his reasons for moving to the neighborhood, and the fact that he was aware of the last proposal for the hospital to become an elderly development,
and not commercial uses. He stated the current proposal wouldn’t fit into the neighborhood. He stated he didn’t understand why the City would even consider this proposal. He stated there
is no parking, and he didn’t think a 70,000 square foot office building along with commercial development belonged near a City park. He discouraged the Plan Commission from approving
this development. Erin Tapley, 1119 E. Parkway Avenue, questioned if there would be a change in the sidewalks. Mr. Burich stated easements are in place for future sidewalk purposes.
Mr. Kinney stated condition #4 of the Staff Report doesn’t include adjacent property owner’s properties. Erin Tapley also questioned where the customers of the grocery store would park.
Mr. Kinney stated they would probably park along Hazel Street but spaces have to be made available on the subject site. Kristi Kakuschke, 585 Hazel Street, questioned the meaning of
market rate apartments. Mr. Kinney explained they are apartments that would be rented out at the current market rate, tax credits wouldn’t apply for the owner, and they wouldn’t be subsidized
by the government for low-income tenants. Mrs. Kakuschke questioned if other parts of the development could become commercial businesses in addition to those areas designated for the
pharmacy and grocery store at this time. Mr. Kinney stated such change would have to be reviewed by the Plan Commission and Common Council and adjacent property owners would be noticed
of those meetings. Mrs. Kakuschke also questioned if the asbestos was removed from the hospital, and if any remained would it be airborne. Ben Ganther, 6030 County Rd. A, stated the
asbestos will be decontaminated and be taken to an approved landfill or be sealed. Cynthia Paulick, 569 Hazel Street, stated she was in favor of the proposal for redevelopment of the
old hospital, however, she wasn’t in favor of having an office building in the area. She stated she has lived there since 1938, and has watched traffic increase over the years. She stated
she was concerned with the number of offices and the traffic flow. Brent Scott, 625 Grove Street, stated he lived across the street from the boiler building and wanted to be assured
there will be no further development in the area. He also questioned the landscaping plans. Mr. Burich stated the plan calls for redeveloping the current boiler facility as an office
and reusing the existing parking lots. Mr. Burich also explained the staff is recommending for more landscaping than is required to buffer the development from the adjacent property
owners. Mr. Scott stated he is also concerned that the rezoning will allow the apartment facilities to become commercial sites sometime in the future. Staff clarified that change of
uses would require additional City reviews and approval.
Plan Commission Minutes Page 11 May 7, 2002 Tim Kakuschke, 585 Hazel Street, stated he is also concerned about changing the dynamics of the neighborhood. He also questioned what effect
the rezoning will have on property taxes. He stated he is concerned with the value of his property with the new design of the area, and although he realizes redevelopment needs occur,
he is not totally in support of this plan. Mr. Kinney stated he didn’t foresee the rezoning to have an impact on their property taxes due to the existing nature and history of the site.
Mrs. Paulick stated she is also concerned about her property value as in the past it may have been desirable to live near a hospital, and it may not be as desirable to live near a commercial
development. Mr. Downing, stated the development currently in construction in the area is beautiful, and he could envision more of the same kind of development on the subject properties.
Mr. Downing also questioned what school district children in this development would attend. He stated Webster Stanley Elementary and Middle School is already overcrowded, and Washington
School is overcrowded. He questioned if the City would be bussing students to schools in the future. Mr. Ganther, petitioner, stated the apartment units are all one and two bedroom units
that would probably not result in many families with children locating there. Mr. Ganther went on to describe the development, which would be made up of 35 market rate apartments not
40 as previously intended. He stated he would like to see small clinic type offices, and has room for a 6,000 square foot convenience store, but doesn’t have any tenants at this time.
He stated 100 units are proposed for elderly apartments, with 60 units proposed for assisted living. Mr. Ganther next addressed Mr. Scott’s concern about the boiler building by explaining
the berm area and wrought iron fencing, with use of the existing parking area. Mr. Ganther explained that the previous proposal entirely for elderly apartments couldn’t get the tax credits
they needed, therefore they couldn’t
afford to go forth with their plans, however, his proposal isn’t seeking tax credits, and was more feasible with the mixed use concept. Chairman Borsuk questioned if Mr. Ganther had
talked to the school board. Mr. Ganther replied he had not talked to the school board about the proposal but again reiterated that the unit makeup should not result in families with
children locating there. Chairman Borsuk asked if there would be any problem including a condition requiring a grocery store and pharmacy to be located in this development. Mr. Ganther
stated having a grocery store and pharmacy in this development would be a plus for the community, however, he didn’t feel comfortable with a condition requiring that it be there. Mr.
Ganther stated that he would try to obtain the grocery and pharmacy tenants to locate but requiring and maintaining the occupancy would not be feasible. Chairman Borsuk questioned if
he had any commitment from Affinity Health Systems. Mr. Ganther stated they have asked for first right of refusal.
Plan Commission Minutes Page 12 May 7, 2002 Chairman Borsuk asked the value of the redevelopment. Ben Ganther stated it would be approximately 10 million dollars. Mrs. Kakuschke, questioned
if putting 10 million dollars into this development wouldn’t be comparable to putting the same amount of money into tearing down the hospital and constructing a new building for elderly
housing. She stated she has been on the school boundary committee and they have considered the site as a development for the elderly and didn’t account for any children. Discussion continued
regarding the concern of commercial turnover in the development, with future uses that may not be suitable for the neighborhood. Mr. Kinney stated the Planned Development designation
requires review by the Plan Commission and Common Council for any changes in the use on the site. Mr. Bettes questioned why the rezoning was necessary for an R-2 to an R-5PD. Mr. Burich
stated an R-5PD would be better for the proposed parking space for the office building building and would be consistent with the entire redevelopment site. Mr. Kinney again stated having
the PD designation would ensure a review from the Plan Commission and Common Council before another use could take place. Mr. Bettes stated he was opposed to this development plan because
of the southern parking lot. He stated the Plan Commission wouldn’t consider having a parking lot with residential property on three sides in a greenfield area. Mr. Dell’Antonia stated
in this case the parking lot already exists and has existed for numerous years. Mr. Burich stated 492 parking stalls were required for the office building and residential units, and
the developer was providing 505 stalls, not an excessive amount over what is required. Mr. Bettes stated customers and visitors would use on street parking over lot parking because of
the closer proximity. Mr. Blassingame stated he agrees with Mr. Downing that this development is preferred over an abandoned building, however, he stated the mixed use would be a benefit
for the neighborhood and felt the community would also support it. He stated this is a historic building with existing parking, with most of the traffic for the parking lot coming of
Cleveland Street, not being much of a disturbance for the surrounding residents. He stated he would support this development as he felt it would be good for the community. Chairman Borsuk
questioned if Mr. Blassingame was concerned with the office building. Mr. Blassingame stated he was not concerned with the office building, nor was he concerned with the number of children
that may reside in the apartment units to have a detrimental effect on the school system. Chairman Borsuk stated the Smart Growth Law, which basically looks at serving the needs of the
neighborhood, should be taken into account when reviewing this development. He stated a mixed use as proposed is not unreasonable, and he would like to see a grocery store and pharmacy
in place. Mr. Ganther stated he would make every effort to secure that type of business, noting that was the only use he has requested for that space, and would have to have further
review from the Plan Commission and Common Council if he were to change the use for that space. Discussion followed regarding the size of the space and the use to be market driven.
Plan Commission Minutes Page 13 May 7, 2002 Motion by Blassingame to approve the redevelopment plan for the old Mercy Medical Hospital site located on Hazel Street, for a zone change
from R-2 Two Family Residence District to R-5PD Multiple Family District with a Planned Development Overlay; a Conditional Use Permit /Planned Development Review for a mixed use development;
and vacation of a portion of Oak Street north of Parkway Avenue found to be in compliance with the review criteria found in Section 30-33 (E) (3) (b) of the Zoning Ordinance because
the site is suitable for the proposed redevelopment, and in compliance with Section 30-11 (D) of the Zoning Ordinance relative to issuance of a CUP with the following conditions: 1)
A landscape plan be submitted and approved by the Department of Community Development prior to any building permit being issued. Special consideration shall be given to improving the
existing landscaping buffers and adding architectural style fencing along perimeter parking areas, especially at block corners and mid block areas. 2) A base standard modification be
allowed for development of the boiler building as office space with a substandard setback to Grove Street as exists. A landscaping plan and building elevation plan be approved by the
Department of Community Development prior to issuance of a building permit for rehabilitation of this building, with mechanical equipment along the Grove Street façade and on the roof
being removed or screened from view. 3) A base standard modification be allowed to develop the parking areas where structures have been removed or the street vacated with the setback
being consistent with the existing parking areas. 4) Dedicate 5 feet of land for permanent sidewalk easements along Parkway Avenue. Seconded by Krueger. Discussion ensued about the implications
if this proposal did not occur and the development continued to deteriorate. Chairman Borsuk questioned if issuing a raze order would be an option. Mr. Kinney stated the building needs
to be deteriorated to an appropriate extent before a raze order could be served, and that may not prove to be a timely option, or one that would service the neighborhood. Motion by Bettes
to amend the motion by adding a condition requiring the developer to hold a neighborhood meeting to address the citizens concerns prior to the item going before the Common Council. Seconded
by Pressley. Mr. Blassingame stated the Plan Commission needs to consider the community as a whole when voting on this development plan, and didn’t think a condition would be necessary.
Mr. Kinney reviewed the schedule whereby this item would be brought forth for the Common Council review and approval, noting that the first reading would be scheduled for May 28th. Mr.
Dell’Antonia stated he likes the idea of a neighborhood meeting, but felt there was ample time to hold such a meeting before the item goes to council without making it a condition.
Plan Commission Minutes Page 14 May 7, 2002 Motion denied 2-6. Nays: Blassingame, Dell’Antonia, Krueger, Reschenberg, Ruppenthal, and Borsuk. Original motion carried 7-1. Nay: Bettes.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:50 p.m.(Krueger/Blassingame). Unanimous. Respectfully submitted, DARRYN L. BURICH Principal Planner DLB/vlr