Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 21, 2001 PRESENT:Lee Bettes, Melanie Bloechl, Donald Krueger, Donald Pressley, Achim Reschenberg, Fred Timmerman, and David Borsuk, Chairman EXCUSED:Lurton Blassingame, Steve Gehling, John Ruppenthal STAFF:Darryn Burich, Principal Planner, Matt Tucker, Assistant Planner, and Vickie Rand, Recording Secretary The meeting was called to order by Chairman Borsuk. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. Chairman Borsuk announced the resignation of James Smith from the Plan Commission. The Meeting Minutes of August 7, 2001 were approved as mailed. (Bloechl/Bettes, Unanimous.) I:CONSENT AGENDA A:OFFICIAL MAPPING FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY AT W. FERNAU AVENUE AND VINLAND STREET The Department of Public Works requests the Plan Commission review and approve the official mapping of 80’ of right-of-way for the future Fernau Avenue, from Vinland Road 183’ to the west. TH B:STORM SEWER EASEMENT 1751 W. 5 AVENUE The Department of Public Works requests the Plan Commission review and approve the acquisition of a th permanent storm sewer easement from Tony Litjens at 1751 W. 5 Avenue. The easement will be th located on the south side of W. 5 Avenue on property zoned R-3 Multiple Dwelling District. C:LAND DIVISION AT 4691 COUNTY ROAD A Winnebago County Highway Department, petitioner, requests the Plan Commission review and approve an extraterritorial land division along County Trunk A, in the Town of Oshkosh, which will create two lots. Lot 1 will be 3,389 square feet, and lot two, containing two existing homes, will be 81,676 square feet. Plan Commission Minutes Page 2August 21, 2001 D:LAND DIVISION AT 4105 SAND PIT ROAD Reinhard Roehlig, petitioner for Tom Hughes, owner, requests the Plan Commission review and approve an extraterritorial land division for property generally located at 4105 Sand Pit Road in the Town of Omro. Motion by Bloechl for approval of the Consent Agenda. Seconded by Timmerman. Motion carried 7-0. II:REZONING 905 BAY SHORE DRIVE; CONDTIONAL USE PERMIT/FINAL DEVELPOMENT PLAN 905 BAY SHORE DRIVE; LAND DIVISION 905 BAY SHORE DRIVE Trident Properties, owner, requests the Plan Commission review and approve rezoning of a portion of 905 Bay Shore Drive from R-1 Single Family Residence District to R-3 PD Multiple Dwelling District with a Planned Development Overlay. A land division is also being requested to separate the portion of the lot that will remain as R-1 from the balance of the property that will be rezoned to R-3 PD. The petitioners are also seeking a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and final development plan for the construction of 20 multiple family units on the divided lot. Mark Radl, 14 Bowen Street, stated he built his house in 1960 and the elevation on his property is quite a bit lower than the subject property. He stated if this development is allowed his lot will be flooded from the runoff. He stated he is opposed to the rezoning for multiple dwelling use. He also stated there are some great older homes in the area and they want to keep the neighborhood as is, and not have rental units developed in the area. Mr. Radl used the map as displayed to point out the R-1 zoning district in which he stated the neighborhood had asked the buyers to consider developing with 5 single family homes to include street reconstruction to create a U-shaped boulevard. He questioned whether anyone would buy a two-story dwelling in that location that wouldn’t have a view of the shoreline, especially valued over $200,000. Mr. Radl stated he realized it was an odd shaped parcel that could be difficult to develop, however, he also noted that the buyers knew the neighborhood didn’t want the property rezoned to a multiple dwelling district when they went ahead with their plans. He stated the neighborhood has historical value as is proven by a monument at the corner of Bowen and Bay Shore Drive in memory of Webster Stanley who owned the first home in Oshkosh. He stated he fears the neighborhood will deteriorate if this rezoning is allowed. Mr. Radl also made note of the developers plans for this development to be open to all ages, when the prior plans were proposed for tenant’s age 55 and older. Mr. Radl urged the Commission to deny the rezoning request leaving the property zoned R-1 Single Family Residence District even though it may not bring in as much income for the developers as they may like. Plan Commission Minutes Page 3August 21, 2001 Joanne Stecker, 38 Bowen Street, stated she lives in a house that faces the parking lot and is concerned vehicle lights would shine into every room in her house. She stated she fears her property value will decrease and she will have difficulty if she would ever consider selling her home. Mr. Borsuk stated the City’s Zoning Ordinance requires a buffer and landscaping that should eliminate such problems. Roger Stecker, 38 Bowen Street, stated he was told at previous meetings that the area where they are now proposing a parking lot would remain green space. He also noted that some of the existing landscaping was dead. Laura Todd, 807 Bay Shore Dr., agreed with the previous comments and stated she was opposed to the development plan. She stated her concerns about the safety for her children with the increased traffic and the negative effect this development may have on her property value. Steve Cummings, 1124 Bay Shore Drive, referred to the draft Neighborhood Initiatives Plan in which the introduction states “it is important for the City to take steps to upgrade and reinforce the viability of older residential areas”, and goes on to say that “Oshkosh is not seen as having well defined neighborhoods.” Mr. Cummings also quoted the Comprehensive Plan adopted August 5, 1993, page F- 20 #3 which reads “Stabilize the predominantly single-family neighborhoods east of Bowen Street and north of Otter Avenue.” and page 3 of the Staff Report which states “In terms of benefits to the community, the redevelopment of the former DNR Office into a private residential development would contribute to the City’s tax base. Also, it would seem the number of vehicle trips generated from 20 living units would be less than the number of trips that were generated by the employees and customers of the former regional DNR office.” Mr. Cummings stated the tax benefit would be short term since he felt the development would have a negative effect on the neighbors property, therefore the City would lose taxes in the long run. Mr. Cummings stated he recently has his home appraised, and the appraisal states that his home is located in a neighborhood that is primarily a single-family residential area. He stated the development is going to have a negative effect on the property values. Mr. Cummings referred to the traffic from the DNR vs. a condominium development. He stated the DNR didn’t have many employees and only operated 5 days a week. He stated the heavy traffic occurred during times when customers purchased deer hunting licenses and fishing licenses. He stated with 20 additional condo’s, there would be traffic from 40 vehicles 7 days a week, along with the 28 vehicles from the current apartments. Mr. Cummings questioned if this development would consist of apartments or condos. He stated if they are marketed as condo’s, he couldn’t see anyone paying for a 1600 square foot condo with no view. He suggested the developers shouldn’t start building until they had 75% of the condo’s sold, otherwise he feared they would become rental units. Mr. Cummings questioned who would be paying for sidewalks in the area, and street improvements after heavy equipment tore up the street. Mr. Cummings also questioned who would buy a lot in the area the R-1 Zoning would remain, that costs on the average of $400,000 to look at condo’s or apartments. Plan Commission Minutes Page 4August 21, 2001 Carol Bullock, 35 Bowen Street, stated she lives in a condo in an R-5 Zoning District, and questioned what that meant. Mr. Tucker stated that was a Multiple Dwelling District. Ms. Bullock stated that when shepurchased her dwelling it was presented as a condo, and questioned if the developer has to be approved for the type of housing constructed, be it condo or apartment. Mr. Burich stated the staff can’t address that issue, and the zoning district applies to the density of the property. Ms. Bullock stated she was opposed to a rental development, and urged the Commission to walk the subject property to determine if they would like to live in the neighborhood with the proposed plans. Al Jacobson, 916 Bay Shore Drive, questioned if a parking or storage area was available for extra recreational vehicles, or if he would have to look at back yard clutter. He also stated he was concerned with the development being open to all ages, and not just the over 55 age group as previously proposed. Mr. Tucker explained the parking regulations according to the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance. Judy Pattie, 1000 Bay Shore Drive, stated she was also concerned about the garbage and the parking, as these are already problems with the current apartments. She also questioned how long they would have to continue to fight against something they didn’t want in their neighborhood. Mr. Borsuk replied that the owners have a right to bring forth a development plan as often as they wish. Ms. Pattie stated she was opposed to the rezoning and the development plan. August Aldrich, 924 Bay Shore Drive, stated he lived across the street. He stated that perhaps the owners should be considerate of the neighbors, recognize they have made a mistake by purchasing the property and find another use for the land. Mr. Radl, questioned the rights of the owners vs. the rights of the neighbors. He stated they are already experiencing problems with the apartments in the neighborhood. He questioned whom to call when the anticipated problems arise. Mrs. Bloechl explained the action taken by the Plan Commission would be a recommendation to the Common Council, and that the Common Council is who should be called with any concerns. She went on to explain the rights of the property owners. Bill Holicky, 1015 Bay Shore Drive, stated with 20 more apartments proposed for the area, the existing problems with the 28 apartments will increase 2-fold. He stated he couldn’t believe this plan could be approved. Sherry Fritschka, 828 Bay Shore Drive, stated she opposes the rezoning. She stated the owners have changed their proposals from $400. apartments for ages 55+; to $600. - $900. apartments; to $150,000 Condo’s. She questioned how to believe this proposal would be built with so many changes thus far. She stated if the owners push through the rezoning, they will be stuck in this type of district for life. She believes the area is too small for 20 units, and doesn’t believe they would be saleable. She stated people might have been more apt to purchase single family homes in the area. She stated other people who may have been interested in buying the land didn’t have a chance, and noted the owners of the subject property have already received income from the adjacent property owners who have bought additional land from them to protect their property. She stated they want to live in a quiet neighborhood. Plan Commission Minutes Page 5August 21, 2001 Jane Dougherty, 11 Caniff Court, stated she opposed the rezoning, and wanted to preserve the neighborhood. Attorney Russ Reff, representing Mr. Norman Mueller and Mr. Schneider, confirmed that this was the third time the owners have come before the Plan Commission with their plans, however, the plans were withdrawn after the last Plan Commission before they went to the Common Council. He discussed the neighborhood meetings had been held since, and thought they had reached an agreement to make the following changes: apply a Planned Development Overlay District to the area; remove the duplex from the plans; and replace surface parking with garages, with the exception of the area adjacent to the DNR building. Attorney Reff explained his clients are taking risks to sell these lots, and stated the same objections are heard with every redevelopment plan they submit, and the neighbors seem to fear the worst. He stated they have been working with the City of Oshkosh planning staff who has supported the multi-family land use. He stated they are not dealing with a vacant R-1, Single Family Residence District in a pristine neighborhood, but rather a neighborhood comprised of a few zoning districts. Attorney Reff referred to Mr. Cummings remarks and noted that Bay Shore Drive was south of Otter Street, and that a traffic count from 1997 was submitted with the last application which indicated 60 visitors per day to the DNR building, with over 2000 visitors in September and October, and over 3000 visitors in November, being served by 45 employees. Attorney Reff stated the DNR offered additional land to the neighboring properties, which was bought by all but one adjacent property owner. Attorney Reff went on to explain that high end 1 & 2-bedroom condos are proposed which are as close to single family as one can get. He stated they may be rented out at some point, but that’s not his client’s goal. He also stated the proposal would be built in phases, which will make the most sense for the land use. He explained his clients have spent a lot of money trying to develop the best situation possible for this site. Mr. Pressley asked Attorney Reff to address the storage issue for vehicles and boats. Attorney Reff stated that would be something to be worked out with the Condo Association when established. Mr. Pressley questioned if a fence will be installed. Mr. Tucker stated a 5’ fence or all seasons landscape buffer is required per the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance. Mrs. Bloechl asked if the existing apartments were improperly zoned. Mr. Tucker stated the zoning was changed after the apartments were built, therefore they were considered legal non-conforming, which meant if they were destroyed they would not be able to be rebuilt. Steve Cummings stated he realized the DNR property is south of Otter Street, however, he again quoted the Comprehensive Plan, page F-20 #3 which states “The predominantly single-family neighborhoods in the Bay Shore/Bowen area should be stabilized.” He stated there is a mish mash of land uses in neighborhoods throughout the City, and the draft Neighborhood Initiatives Plan calls for stabilization of older neighborhoods. Plan Commission Minutes Page 6August 21, 2001 Joanne Stecker stated she didn’t feel a 5’ fence would eliminate the vehicle lights from shining into her home. Ms. Fritschka questioned if there was anything that could be done legally that would require the owners to develop the property according to the plans, once they received approval from the Common Council. Mr. Burich stated the footprint established would need to be followed as well as any other condition imposed by the Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Krueger stated he would support this proposal. He stated it was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He noted there are apartments next to single family residences throughout Oshkosh, and the scenario seems to work well. Mr. Bettes stated multi-family housing needs to be distributed evenly throughout the city, but it is the Plan Commission’s obligation to determine the best land use. He stated he would oppose this proposal because he believes it a misappropriation of the planned development overlay concept. He explained a planned development allows compromises, and in this case it has been abused, allowing an irregular shaped lot to sandwich in the maximum number of units that they feel the lot can handle. Ms. Bloechl stated she agreed with Mr. Bettes, and pointed out on page 3 of the Staff Report, the Base Standard Modification/Community Benefit does not meet the planned development overlay criteria. Mr. Reschenberg stated he would oppose this proposal as he feels the property is too small for what’s being proposed. Motion by Bettes for approval of the rezoning from R-1 Single Family Residence District to R-3PD, Multiple Dwelling District with a Planned Development Overlay for a portion of the lot as shown on the submitted plan, approval of the land division as shown on the attached site plan, and approval of the Conditional Use Permit/Final Development Plan for the property at 905 Bay Shore Drive with the following conditions: 1)Landscape plan be submitted to and approved by the Department of Community Development prior to submitting any building permits. 2)Architectural enhancements be added to the roof line of the proposed new townhouses with said enhancements to be approved by the Department of Community Development prior to submitting for any building permits. 3)Exterior architectural treatment and enhancements be added to the old DNR office building prior to submitting for any building permits. Seconded by Bloechl. Motion denied 2-5. Nays: Bettes, Bloechl, Pressley, Reschenberg, and Timmerman. Plan Commission Minutes Page 7August 21, 2001 III:CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PARKING LOT EXPANSION AT 510 E. NEW YORK AVENUE Dennis Schwab, petitioner and owner, requests the Plan Commission review and approve a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the expansion of a parking lot at 510 E. New York Avenue. The subject property is zoned R-1 Single Family Residence District, within which parking lots are a conditional use. Mr. Bettes questioned if the mature oak trees on the property would have to be removed. Mr. Tucker, stated they will keep as many as possible, however, one would definitely be lost due to the damage it received in the June 11 storm. Dennis Schwab, 601 Oregon Street, displayed pictures of the old house on the property that would need to be torn down to expand the parking lot. He stated he would preserve as many trees as possible, although, he thought at least two may be lost. Mr. Burich stated they could incorporate existing vegetation into the required landscape plan but the parking lot screening standards would still need to be adhered to. Mrs. Bloechl asked what affect the removal of the house will have on the tax base. Mr. Schwab stated the parking lot will be of less value on the tax rolls than having a structure on the lot. Mrs. Bloechl also questioned what amount of property was considered a substantial green space to provide a buffer between the parking lot and the adjoining single family residence to the east. Mr. Tucker stated 40 feet of green space will make up the buffer between the parking lot and the residence to the east. Motion by Timmerman for approval of a Conditional Use Permit determined to be in compliance with the standards of Section 30-11 for the expansion of a parking lot at 510 E. New York Avenue subject to the following conditions: 1)The two lots that comprise the parking lot be combined prior to obtaining a building permit. 2)A landscaping plan be submitted to, and approved by, the Department of Community Development prior to issuance of a building permit. 3)Screening be installed in compliance with section 30-35(I) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance. Seconded by Krueger. Motion carried 7-0. IV:CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CHILDREN’S DAY CARE FACILITY AT 1721 AND 1745 OHIO STREET Faith Evangelical Lutheran Church, owners, are requesting the Plan Commission review and approve a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to operate a childcare facility between 1721 and 1745 Ohio Street. The land use pattern in the area is generally residential in character, however, Faith Evangelical Lutheran Church and its parsonage are on the subject property. The property is zoned R-1 Single Family Residence District, which does allow day care center uses by CUP. Plan Commission Minutes Page 8August 21, 2001 Mr. Burich introduced the item, making note of corrections to the conditions noted in the Staff Report. He stated condition number one should read: License capacity for the facility not to exceed 30 children; and number two should read: Hours of operation to be limited to 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. Rosemary Davis, 617 W. 17th Avenue, stated she had a petition consisting of 61 signatures (on file in the department of Community Development) stating they do not approve of a Conditional Use Permit for a children’s day care facility to be built. Mrs. Davis stated she had bought her home in 1953 before the church was built and watched its membership grow and decline. She stated she is concerned about how the church can afford a two story building with all costs considered, and questioned what would happen to the building if the church would become non-operational. She also questioned what kinds of uses could go into the two-story building proposed for a day care facility. Chairman Borsuk passed around a letter from Marilyn Morrison at this time also opposing the construction of a day care facility in the neighborhood. John Murphy, 633 W. 17th Avenue, stated he lives on the far west property line. He stated he was concerned about the noise that would result from a day care, especially for shift workers in the neighborhood. He also commented that the subject property was 2-3’ above the neighbor’s grade and questioned what kind of surface was being considered for the facility. Chairman Borsuk stated a drainage plan would have to be submitted and approved, and the Plan Commission didn’t have any authority to act on that issue. Mr. Murphy also questioned what kind of fence would be installed. He stated he would prefer a wooden fence compared to a chain link fence, however, he suggested it be double sided, and 6’ high. He stated he was also concerned about the impact a day care of this nature would have on the property values in the neighborhood. He stated businesses in the area are already creating problems for an area that was residential in character. Wally Tesch, 1847 Oregon Street, Architect and member of the congregation, stated they would like to request days and hours of operation to be Monday through Friday, 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. He stated there is 135’ from the back of the building to the west property line, and agreed to construct a wooden fence 25 feet from the rear lot line. He stated they already have requests for 48 children with 8 teachers. He also felt the children in day care wouldn’t be old enough for the noise factor to be an issue. Mrs. Bloechl questioned what age group would be accepted at the day care. Jill Pearson, 1335 Clairville Road, stated they had 8 children under 1 year old; 8 children between 1 & 2 years old; 12 children between 2-3 years old; and 20 children from 3-5 years old. Mrs. Bloechl questioned if they were regulated by the ADA laws as well as the by the state, and if the playground as well as the second floor was handicapped accessible. Mr. Tesch stated they were also regulated by the ADA, however, they were not required to have the second floor be handicapped accessible, but they were required to have a handicapped accessible bathroom on the second floor. He also added the playground area was handicapped accessible being on a flat surface. Plan Commission Minutes Page 9August 21, 2001 Mrs. Bloechl questioned if this business was going to operate under a lease from the church or run by the church, and would the day care be tax exempt. Mr. Tesch replied that a Board of Directors from the church would run the day care facility, which would be tax exempt. Mr. Bettes questioned if the meeting should be laid over to allow another meeting notice to be sent out to inform the adjacent property owners of the change in the number of children from 30 – 48. Mr. Burich stated the number of children wasn’t specified on the original meeting notice so a new notice would not be required. Joseph Raab, 1732 Ohio Street, stated he is opposed to the child care facility because of the extra noise, and declining property values. Bill Pearson, 1335 Clairville Road, representing the church, replied to the neighborhood concerns regarding declining membership stating the summertime attendance is a poor indication of a decline in membership. He stated a business plan was submitted with full financing and approval. He stated property values in the neighborhood would probably increase being near a school, fulfilling a need and providing a service in Oshkosh. He stated the City’s Referral and Resource Department was excited to hear about the use, and noted they already have 14 children committed to the day care facility. Mrs. Bloechl questioned the number of children already committed to the day care facility as Mr. Tesch had stated they had 48 children at this time with 8 teachers. Mr. Tesch stated 48 children were the number of children the State was willing to license the day care facility for. Kevin Ganther of Ganther Construction stated that was an error on his part when filling out the application. Mr. Tucker stated the Conditional Use Permit, if approved, would be for a children’s day care facility with a licensed capacity for 48 children with the hours of operation limited to 7 a.m. – 6 p.m. Monday through Friday. Mr. Pressley questioned why the church hadn’t met with the neighbor’s about their proposal, and if they would be willing to meet in the near future. Mr. Pearson stated it was an oversight on their part, and they would be glad to discuss this proposal with the neighborhood. Eleanor Robl, 616 W. 18th Avenue, stated she didn’t approve of the architectural style of the facility. She stated it was too close to her property, and didn’t think a fence would be the answer to the noise and increase in traffic. Duane Ritschke, 1734 Delaware Street, stated his property would be adjacent to the playground area, and agrees with the previous comments made by the neighbors. Dave Conklin, 632 W. 18th Avenue, stated he would like to have a meeting with the church to talk with them about issues the Plan Commission doesn’t address. He stated there are many private day care centers in the area, and feels the need is addressed. Clarence Robl, 616 W. 18th Avenue, stated the air conditioning unit would be very close to his back yard, and he didn’t feel he should be subjected to the noise. Plan Commission Minutes Page 10August 21, 2001 Carol Murphy, 633 W. 17th Avenue, stated she is concerned with the 2-story structure proposed for the day care. She questioned if it was designed with a flat roof for expansion of a 3rd floor. She stated she also agrees with her neighbors concerns. She stated she bought her property in 1989 and likes the open neighborhood concept. Marilyn Morrison, 629 W. 17th Avenue, stated she is strongly opposed to the day care facility, and feels it will have a negative impact on the quality of life and property values in the neighborhood. Richard Button, 622 W. 18th Avenue, stated he is in agreement with the concerns voiced by the others in the neighborhood. Ramona Holdren, 1716 Delaware Street, stated the neighborhood is currently quiet and well kept, she fears a negative impact on the property values, and questioned if the City would be re-accessing their property for their taxes to reflect the true value. She stated she is concerned about liability and homeowners insurance with the possible trespassing on her property. Ms. Holdren stated she supports day care in the right place, and suggested this be kept at a low scale day care center if approved. Rosemary Davis, questioned if this was a recruiting program for the congregation. John Murphy, 633 W. 17th Avenue, stated Ohio Street was a too busy of a street for a day care drop off and pick up site and questioned if the street would need to be widened, and if so, how would it effect their front yards. Jill Pearson, stated the safety of the children was their main concern, along with the quality of care. She also reported 234 families have contacted the Oshkosh Child Care Resource and Referral Agency, which represented 312 children in which 35 children were 3 years old, or pre-school age, and 150 children were under 2 years old. She stated they were assured there was a need for quality childcare on the south side. Robert Davis, 617 W. 17th Avenue, stated he was opposed to the architectural style of the building along with the concerns other neighbors have expressed. Eleanor Robl, stated there may be a need for day care in certain areas, however, she has seen many openings in day cares advertised recently. Motion by Pressley to lay over this item for 2 meetings in which time the church would plan on meeting with the neighbors, and re-evaluate their proposal, and to position the item as the first item on the agenda for September 18th. Seconded by Bloechl. Mrs. Bloechl stated she is supporting the lay over to open lines of communication between the church and the adjacent property owners. Mr. Pressley added that the burden of holding a meeting lies with the church. Mr. Reschenberg informed the neighbors that even though they are opposed to a day care facility, the church has the right to expansion. Motion carried 7-0. Plan Commission Minutes Page 11August 21, 2001 V:CONDTIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A REMOTE TELECOMMUNICATIONS TERMINAL AT 1418 OSHKOSH AVE Elaine Fritz, Ameritech, petitioner for Roberta Felda, owner requests the Plan Commission review and approve a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow for construction of a remote telecommunication terminal at 1418 Oshkosh Ave. The subject property is zoned C-1 Neighborhood Business district that does allow public utility structures by CUP. Mr. Burich introduced the item, adding a condition for the petitioner/owner to obtain a variance from the Board of Appeals for the location of the building. He proceeded to pass out a letter to the Plan Commission from Mr. Walter Rosanske (on file in the Department of Community Development) stating his opposition to the Conditional Use Permit. Mrs. Bloechl questioned why the Plan Commission needed to take action if a variance was needed in order to construct the building. Mr. Burich stated this is the first step in the process, which will determine if a variance application is warranted. Elaine Fritz, Ameritech Representative, 221 W. Washington, Appleton, Wisconsin, stated she was present to answer any questions the Plan Commission may have. Bob Felda, 6250 Bonnie View Road, Pickett, Wisconsin, owner of 1418 Oshkosh Avenue, stated Mr. Rosanske had called him recently with an offer to buy the property, however, that was the first time he has heard from him in at least 15 years. He stated he would have sold him the property long ago. He stated he didn’t see a problem with the terminal since it was proposed to be located next to the alley and close to Mr. Rosanske’s garage. Motion by Pressley for approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow for construction of a remotetelecommunication terminal at 1418 Oshkosh Avenue subject to the following conditions: 1.Submittal of a landscape plan that provides a sufficient level of landscape treatment to de-emphasize the appearance of this stand-alone structure with said plan subject to review and approval of the Department of Community Development. 2.The petitioner/owner obtain a variance from the Board of Appeals to locate the building on the subject property prior to issuance of a building permit. Seconded by Timmerman. Motion carried 7-0. VI:REZONING PROPERTY IMMEDIATELY WEST OF 2500 WITZEL AVENUE FROM C-1, NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DISTRICT TO R-5 MULTIPLE DWELLING DISTRICT Jack Mark, Midwest Real Estate Development Company, petitioner and owner requests the Plan Commission review and approve a zone change from C-1 Neighborhood Business District to R-5 Multiple Dwelling District. Plan Commission Minutes Page 12August 21, 2001 Mr. Burich introduced the item noting a correction to the letter from Mr. Mark attached to the Staff Report, stating there was a total unused density of 332 units, whereas, it should read 295 units, therefore noting that Mr. Mark has not over developed the area. Jack Mark passed out a folder of information for each member of the Plan Commission, outlining the development they have done in the past ten years, and the effect the relocation of Mercy Medical Center has had on the area, drawing senior citizens instead of a mix of various age brackets to the developments. The letter mentioned the amenities that will be found in the large senior housing project. Drawings of the project were also included in the folder which consists of the site plan, elevations, foundation, and floor plans. Mr. Mark continued by using the map as displayed to review the prototype of the 3-story brick building being proposed, pointing out the entrance for senior and handicapped tenants, the heated garage, and the landscaping planned for the project. He explained 76 units would be more cost effective in planning for full time management on site and care for the residents. Mr. Mark reported he has discussed this project with the adjacent property owners, and has not received any opposition. He urged the Plan Commission to approve the rezoning. Mrs. Bloechl questioned if the project was considered a semi-assisted living type housing. Mr. Mark replied it wasn’t considered semi-assisted living, but rather would have a manager on site, pointing out the difference. He noted some of the buildings would be designed for tenants to move from one building to another for more assistance. Mrs. Bloechl questioned if the housing project could be limited to age 55 and older. Attorney Gary Yakes, restricting the housing to 55 and older was allowed through a special exemption. Mr. Bettes stated there is a huge market for this type of housing and questioned if there was a recreation room available. Mr. Mark stated a recreation room and an exercise room was available. Mr. Bettes complimented the heated garage and noted how sidewalks are also needed in the development. Motion by Timmerman for approval of the zone change from C-1 Neighborhood Business District to R-5 Multiple Dwelling District for the property immediately west of 2500 Witzel Avenue. Seconded by Reschenberg. Motion carried 7-0. VII:PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED CREATION OF TAX INCREMENTAL FINANCING DISTRICT # 17 CITY CENTER REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT: DESIGNATION OF BOUNDARIES AND APPROVAL OF PROJECT PLAN Prior to taking action on Tax Incremental Financing District (TID) #17 and the designation of boundaries for said Tax Incremental Financing District, the Plan Commission is to hold a public hearing and take comments concerning the proposed creation of the TID. This public hearing is required as part of the formal process the city must follow in the creation of a TID. The meeting was adjourned for a public hearing on the proposed creation of Tax Incremental Financing District #17 City Center Redevelopment project: Designation of Boundaries and Approval of Project Plan. Mr. Burich used the maps as displayed to point out the TID District and the proposed improvements. Plan Commission Minutes Page 13August 21, 2001 Mrs. Bloechl questioned why the area was split into two (2) TID Districts. Mr. Burich explained TID #15 was due to a proposal to accommodate 4Imprint and there wasn’t a proposal in place for the area proposed for TID #17. Mr. Burich also explained they could have expanded TID #16, however they would only have had a 3-year time frame to make the improvements, and creating another TID District would allow a 7-year time frame to finance the proposed improvements. Jeff Pauley, managing partner, showed a fly-over video of the property with renderings of the improvements made to the site. Mr. Koeppler, stated the site was purchased in January of 2001, and since that time has leased out 40% of the space. He stated it is a difficult site to develop, but one that will benefit both the owners and the community, therefore the 50/50 split on the increment the development will create. He stated the first phase of improvements will consists of the removal of the parking ramp near the Park Plaza International Hotel. Chairman Borsuk questioned the tower and the condo’s for residential use, and the number of housing units available. Jeff Pauley stated the project would be a multi-use development. He discussed the expansion of the retail area, the office space for large and small tenants, and the building itself having the capability to construct a tower to be used for senior housing, and condo’s for a variety of age groups because of the amenities offered in each area. Mr. Burich stated that the developer would make up any short falls in the 50% split. He also noted any cost expenditures would require development agreements to be approved by the Common Council. Mrs. Bloechl questioned Mr. Pauley if an article in the Oshkosh Northwestern quoted him correctly as saying a new TIF Partnership for TIF funds to be spent privately on improvements to the building and publicly on improvements to the surrounding property etc…. Mr. Pauley stated the City would be making improvements to the promenade and bike paths, and the street side of Pearl and Jackson Streets with signage, and improvements to be made from a visual standpoint. Mr. Burich stated a partnership was needed to work with the owners to implement these improvements. Mr. Burich stated working together would ensure the redevelopment of the property. He explained the retail and residential use would bring up the property value. Discussion continued on the redevelopment plans and the risks the owners have already taken in purchasing the mall. Motion by Bloechl to close the Public Hearing portion of the meeting. Seconded by Reschenberg. Motion carried 7-0. Motion by Pressley for approval of the boundaries of TID #17 and the TID #17 Project Plan, and recommend approval of the TID boundaries and Project Plan by the Common Council. Seconded by Reschenberg. Mr. Bettes stated the City needs developers with a vision. He stated this is a key property in Oshkosh and supports use of the property. Mr. Reschenberg stated he agreed with Mr. Bettes. Plan Commission Minutes Page 14August 21, 2001 Chairman Borsuk stated that he felt the TIF agreed with the comprehensive plan, and he approved of the streetscaping and the bike trail, however, he did not approve of residential uses in the TIF that takes funds away from the schools, therefore he will not support it. Motion carried. 5-1-1. Nay: Borsuk, Bloechl voting present. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 7:16 p.m. Respectfully submitted, DARRYN BURICH Principal Planner DB/vlr