Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 6, 2002 PRESENT: Lee Bettes, Lurton Blassingame, Jon Dell’Antonia, Steve Gehling, Donald Pressley, Kathleen Propp, Achim Reschenberg, John Ruppenthal, and Donald Krueger, Vice Chairman STAFF: Darryn Burich, Principal Planner; Jackson Kinney, Director of Community Development: and Vickie Rand, Recording Secretary The meeting was called to order by Vice Chairman Krueger. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. The minutes of July 16, 2002 were approved as mailed (Blassingame/Reschenberg). Unanimous. I: CONSENT AGENDA A: PRIVILEGE IN STREET FOR INSTALLATION OF MONITORING WELLS AT 2014 ALGOMA BLVD. Omnni Associates, petitioner for Appleton Marble and Granite, owner, request the Plan Commission to review and approve a privilege in street for the placement of monitoring wells in the Algoma Boulevard right-of-way in front of 2014 Algoma Boulevard. The general area around the monitoring wells is commercial to the west and a cemetery to the east. B: ACCEPT PERMANENT EASEMENT: 2949 RUSCHFIELD DR. The Department of Community Development requests the Plan Commission to review and approve the acceptance of a permanent easement for pedestrian trail purposes at 2949 Ruschfield Drive. Approximately 920.27 square feet of additional easement area is proposed to be accepted by the City. The subject property contains a single family dwelling and the area is generally characterized by single family uses. C: LAND DIVISION/CERTIFIED SURVEY MAP/ACCEPT RIGHT-OF- WAY FOR PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE NORTH END OF LILAC STREET Roehlig Land Surveying, petitioner for Ronald Tenpas, owner, requests the Plan Commission to review and approve a land division/certified survey map(CSM)/acceptance of right-of-way for property generally located at the north end of Lilac Street. The approximate 6 acre subject property is zoned R-2 Two Family Residence District. Motion by Ruppenthal for approval of the consent agenda with the following conditions for items “A” and “C”: ITEM A: 1)The monitoring wells be installed in a manner that is approved by the Department of Public Works. 2)If no longer needed the monitoring wells 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 monitoring wells or the placement of the monitoring wells be the responsibility of the petitioner or owner to correct in coordination with the Department of Public Works. 4)All appropriate permits be obtained prior to the start of boring or excavation work. 5)The monitoring wells be modified or removed immediately upon request of the City. 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. ITEM C: 1) Lot 4 be reconfigured to meet the minimum Ordinance width at the building setback line of 59 feet. Seconded by Pressley. Motion carried 8-0. Mr. Dell’Antonia arrived at this time. TH II: REZONE PROPERTY AT 137 W. 8 AVENUE FROM M-2 CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT TO C-3 CENTRAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT Greg and Amy Hardt, petitioners/owners request the Plan Commission to review and approve a zone change from M-2 Central Industrial District to C-3 Central Commercial th District for property at 137 W. 8 Avenue. The 4,500 square foot (50’ x 90’) subject property contains a 1.5 story 1,720 square foot single family dwelling which is a non- conforming use in the M-2 district. The C-3 Central Commercial District permits residential uses so a zone change will make the subject property’s use status conforming with district regulations. Mr. Ruppenthal requested Mr. Burich to address the staff’s analysis of the zoning designation of M-2 compared to C-3 for the area. Mr. Burich stated this rezoning had come about because of the property owners wish to refinance. He stated the residential uses were all non-conforming in the M-2 District, and it would be appropriate for the City to examine the area more closely in their process of updating the Comprehensive Plan to determine where zone changes from M-2 may be needed to bring non-conforming uses in to compliance. Motion by Ruppenthal for approval of the rezoning from M-2 Central Industrial District to C-3 Central Commercial District for property located at 137 W. 8th Avenue. Seconded by Blassingame. Motion carried 9-0. III: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW FOR A TH RETAIL CENTER EAST OF 1100 W 20 AVE. James Petr, petitioner for Alpha Delta 1, LLC, owner, requests the Plan Commission to review and approve a Conditional Use Permit (CUP)/Development Plan Review to construct a 12,000 square foot retail center for property generally located east of 1100 W. th 20 Avenue. The subject property is zoned C-1PD Neighborhood Business District with a Planned Development Overlay District. The PD Overlay requires that a CUP to be issued prior to development taking place. Mr. Blassingame questioned the 7-foot front yard setback modification from 20th Avenue where 25 feet is required. Mr. Burich explained this was not out of character with the development to the east and west so it was deemed appropriate. Tom Mauritz, 1929 Knapp Street, Condominium President, questioned how close the fence would be that is proposed for the north lot line. He stated he was concerned about the landscaping they had done in that area this past spring, and wants to ensure enough room is available for fence maintenance. Mr. Burich explained when this item was originally reviewed in 2001, there was some concern about appropriate buffering of the rear property line from the adjacent residential uses. A condition was made at that time for a deed restriction to be placed on the development requiring that if the fence on the adjacent property was ever to be removed, the subject property needed to install a new wood fence. Mr. Mauritz stated the fence had been removed after being damaged in a storm. Mr. Burich stated they would work with the property owners regarding placement of the fence so it would not negatively impact the landscaping planted on the condo property. Bob Spanbauer, 1939 Knapp Street, questioned if the adjacent parcel to the northwest would be landlocked. Mr. Burich used the map to point out the parcel to the north has a 30’ strip of frontage on 20th Avenue, therefore it wouldn’t be landlocked. Mr. Spanbauer questioned who owned that parcel. Mr. Burich stated Alpha Delta 1, LLC was the owner of that property as well. Bob Kujawa, 601 Oregon Street, Suite B, representing the owner, stated they would be willing to work with the adjacent property owner in locating the fence in conjunction to the landscaping recently installed by the property owners to the north. He also mentioned the lot to the northwest is owned by the same company as the subject property, and there is a development plan in the works for that area as well that will be brought forward for approval in the near future. Mrs. Propp questioned if there was a process in place to ensure the owner would work with the adjacent property owner to the north regarding the placement of the required fence. Mr. Burich stated a landscape plan still needs to be reviewed and that issue will be taken into consideration at that time. Mr. Reschenberg questioned the width of the easterly driveway. Mr. Burich stated it was 25’ in width. Mr. Reschenberg stated it should have a greater radius for ingress and egress or traffic would be backed up on 20th Avenue. Mr. Burich stated a condition could be added for the easterly driveway to be created with the maximum radius allowed by the Municipal Code. Discussion followed regarding the landscaping in the site triangles and access to parking lots. Mr. Burich stated there are rules that apply for site triangles and parking lots. Mr. Kinney stated they have been reviewing these areas more closely and are taking another look at areas already approved to ensure a lower level of plantings are properly placed. Motion by Pressley for approval of a Conditional Use Permit/Development Plan Review for the property generally located east of 1100 W. 20th Avenue found to be consistent with the standards set forth in Section 30-11 (D) 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. The landscape plan provide enhanced levels of landscaping in areas where base standard modifications have been granted for substandard setbacks. 2)A 6-foot high solid wood fence be required to buffer the rear of the development from adjacent residential uses. 3)A cross access agreement be approved by the City and filed with the Register of Deeds. 4)The easterly driveway to be created with the maximum radius allowed by Municipal Code. Seconded by Blassingame. Motion carried 9-0. IV: PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO TAX INCRMENT DISTRICT # 14 HAZEL STREET/MERCY MEDICAL CENTER REDEVELOPMENT: DESIGNATION OF BOUNDARIES AND APPROVAL OF PROJECT PLAN Prior to taking action on proposed Amendment No. 1 to Tax Increment District (TID) # 14 Hazel Street/Mercy Medical Center Redevelopment, the Plan Commission is to hold a public hearing and take comments concerning the proposed amendment. This public hearing is required as part of the formal process the City must follow in amending a TID. The City is proposing to amend TID # 14 by adding both territory to the TID and projects to the Project Plan. TID # 14 was created in 2000 in order to assist in redeveloping a portion of the former 16+ acre hospital site that contained two large (300,000 square feet) buildings, associated parking, and accessory buildings. Vice Chairman Krueger opened the public hearing portion of the meeting. Mr. Blassingame asked Mr. Kinney to address the level of review and approval the Plan Commission is required to consider in lieu of the article in the morning’s Northwestern. Mr. Kinney stated the Plan Commission is asked to approve TID boundaries and the project plan. He explained that the dollar amounts shown are part of the project plan, which show the plan is financially viable and that the TID will be paid off per the investment and the increase in the property value. Mr. Kinney stated the Common Council would make the final approval of the financial investment the City would make. Mr. Dell’Antonia questioned if the Plan Commission’s recommendation would include the entire package or the package without the financial aspect. Mr. Kinney explained the financial information in the related materials the Plan Commission has received are anticipated costs of the TID, therefore they would be recommending the entire package in concept. Mr. Burich introduced the item using the map as displayed to point out the new TID #14 boundaries. Mr. Burich went on to explain the TID funds will be used to cover the costs of the City’s portion of the infrastructure improvements to the streets, water mains, storm sewer, and sanitary sewer, with the remaining project costs to be assessed against the adjacent benefiting property owners. Ben Ganther, 6030 County Road A, stated he was available to answer any questions the Plan Commission may have. He stated he believes this to be a good mixed use project on property that has never before been on the tax rolls. He stated the development should produce approximately $10 million worth of tax dollars. He stated if the tax increments are not sufficient to cover debt service payments to the City a guarantee will be provided to cover any shortfalls that may occur. Mr. Ganther discussed the asbestos abatement and demolition work that needs to be done. Mrs. Propp made note of the last proposal for this site and the reasons for it’s failure and questioned if the same could happen in regards to this project. Mr. Ganther stated this project wouldn’t be seeking the same kind of assistance because it is a mixed use project and the apartments will be available at the market rate. Mr. Dell’Antonia questioned the dollar amount that Mercy Medical Center would be contributing to the project. Mr. Ganther stated Mercy Medical Center would be contributing approximately $485,000 to the project costs, and have spent over $300,000 over the last 3 years for maintenance and security of the buildings. Mr. Ruppenthal stated he understood there would be a guarantee on behalf of the developers to cover any shortfalls in the debt service payments to the City, and questioned under what circumstances might that happen. Mr. Ganther stated he didn’t really know of any circumstances and believed that to be a clause by which the City would be able to recover any losses that may incur. Bill Plummer, 703 Hazel Street, stated he had received a meeting notice and questioned what was expected of him regarding this project. Mr. Kinney stated meeting notices are sent out to adjacent property owners as a regular practice of the Department of Community Development to keep them informed of projects happening in their neighborhood. Vice Chairman Krueger closed the public hearing portion of the meeting at this time. Mr. Blassingame stated this project appears to be a benefit to the community by eliminating the blighting process of this property in the neighborhood. He stated this proposal should help the City achieve their goals as stated in the Comprehensive Plan. Motion by Blassingame for approval of the boundaries of amended TID #14 and the amended TID #14 Project Plan. Seconded by Bettes. Mr. Dell’Antonia asked if the motion would also be recommending the $1 million contribution on behalf of the City. Mr. Burich stated that was correct, but the Project Plan also provides the ability to be flexible in the actual amounts expended as the numbers are the Department’s bes estimates at the time the plan was being drafted. He stated that before funds would be distributed to the developer, an agreement would have to be entered into which the Council would have to approve and that actual amount could be less than the recommended in the Project Plan. Mr. Dell’Antonia stated he would be voting against it at this time until he has a chance to further review the financing before his final vote at the Common Council meeting. Motion carried 8-1. Nay: Dell’Antonia There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:43 p.m.(Pressley/Blassingame). Unanimous. Respectfully submitted, DARRYN L. BURICH Principal Planner DLB/vlr