HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes__________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 1 September 3, 2013 PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES September 3, 2013 PRESENT: David Borsuk, Jeffrey Thoms, Thomas Fojtik , John Hinz, Steve Cummings, Kathleen Propp, Karl Nollenberger EXCUSED: Ed Bowen, Donna Lohry, Robert Vajgrt STAFF: Darryn Burich, Director of Planning Service s; David Buck, Principal Planner; Jeffrey Nau, Associate Planner; Allen Davis, Director of Co mmunity Development; Lynn Lorenson, City Attorney; Steven Gohde, Assistant Di rector of Public Works; Chris Strong, Director of Transportation; Deborah Foland, Recording Secretary Chairperson Fojtik called the meeting to order at 4 :00 pm. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. The minutes of August 20, 2013 were approved as pre sented. (Hinz/Cummings) I. GRANT PRIVATE UTILITY EASEMENTS FOR PROPERTY LOC ATED AT THE NORTHEAST AND SOUTHEAST CORNERS OF CHURCH AVENUE AN D DIVISION STREET Wisconsin Public Service is requesting the City of Oshkosh to grant two separate private utility easements to allow placement of guy poles, guy anch ors and guy wires on city property at the 400 Block West and Division Street Parking Lots. Mr. Nau presented the item and reviewed the site an d surrounding area as well as the site plan for the proposed easement. He explained the reasoning for the easement request and stated that the Department of Public Works and the Transit Departme nt had no concerns with this request and the City Attorney would be working with Wisconsin Publi c Service to record the appropriate documents at the Winnebago County Register of Deeds. Mr. Borsuk questioned if there were any further pla ns to remove overhead power lines in this area. Chris Strong, Director of Transportation, responded that Wisconsin Public Service was in the process of cleaning up some old infrastructure in this area and it was not the intent to underground all the wiring in the downtown. Mr. Thoms questioned why the plans referenced new u tility poles if they were undergrounding the wiring. Mr. Strong responded that the work being completed was to extend up to the crossing of Parkway Avenue and the project was to re-route the current facilities not to underground all the utilities in the downtown area. Mr. Borsuk inquired if this project could be part o f burying all the utilities in this district and if the Commission could look at this plan in its entirety.
__________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 2 September 3, 2013 Mr. Burich replied that this is not part of a plan to underground all the utilities in the downtown di strict and the Common Council had discussed this matter an d decided that this would be considered as part of major reconstruction projects for gateway street s. Steve Gohde, Assistant Director of Public Works, co mmented that the goal was to underground the utilities in time and the first street would most l ikely be 9 th Avenue which was scheduled to be reconstructed between 2015 and 2017. He further co mmented that the easement request today was necessary. Mr. Burich added that this project will remove the wires that are currently attached to the buildings in the downtown area. Mr. Gohde agreed and added that Wisconsin Public Se rvice needs to remove the guys from the buildings for liability reasons. Motion by Nollenberger to approve granting private utility easements for property located at the northeast and southeast corners of Church Avenu e and Division Street. Seconded by Borsuk. Motion carried 7-0. II. STREET VACATION OF AN ALLEY LOCATED BETWEEN MOU NT VERNON AND ASHLAND STREETS, FROM E. SMITH TO LIBBEY AVENUES The City requests the vacation of a 16 foot by 603.80 foot alley located between Mount Vernon and Ashland Streets from E. Smith to Libbey Avenues. Mr. Nau presented the item and reviewed the site an d surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in said area. He stated tha t the City was unaware that the alley still existed and described the history of the area. He reviewed the condition recommended for this request to place a utility easement over the entire vacated area. Mr. Thoms questioned if the City placed a utility e asement over all the other alleys at the time they were vacated. Mr. Nau responded that he was not sure of some sinc e they began vacating these alleys as far back as the 1960’s but utility easements are typically plac ed over these areas currently. Mr. Thoms then inquired what happens if the utility company needs to access this area. Mr. Burich responded that this is the reason the ci ty retains easement rights in these areas as it was a possibility. Mr. Gohde added that very few areas that were previ ously vacated do not have this condition and that unnecessary right-of-way has been vacated since the 1930’s or later. Commission members briefly discussed the practice o f maintaining easements in vacated areas of the city. Mr. Borsuk questioned if any utilities in this area would be registered with Digger’s Hotline as it wa s not referenced in the conditions.
__________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 3 September 3, 2013 Mr. Gohde responded that this request does not invo lve the placement of utilities in this area therefo re adding this condition was not an appropriate requir ement in this case. Susan Hansen, 2344 Mt. Vernon Street, stated that s he had resided at this property for 14 years and was never notified that the area behind their home was not their property as the City never maintained this area. She voiced her concerns with what was g oing to happen after the alley was vacated and this easement placed on the area and questioned if they would be taxed on the additional land area. Mr. Nau replied that the land would be deeded onto their property and the easement would ensure that any utility companies with equipment in that area w ould be allowed access to the property. Ms. Hansen questioned the existing fence they have in the easement area and if a utility company would take it down if access was necessary, would i t be repaired when the work was completed. Mr. Burich responded that if property owners place structures such as fences in an easement area the utility company could remove it to gain access howe ver they have no obligation to replace it. Mr. Nau added that if the alley remains city right-of-way as it currently exists, the City could order the fences and any other structures removed from it as it is not part of the property owner’s land. Mr. Borsuk questioned if this type of situation is subject to adverse possession. Mr. Nau responded negatively. Mr. Borsuk inquired about when property is bought o r sold if an alley such as this would have been disclosed. Mr. Nau responded that it would show up if a title search was completed at the time of sale. Mr. Cummings added that the Assessor’s office indic ates the size of the lot on your tax bill and the width and depth of the lot should also be disclosed at the time of sale. Ms. Hansen stated that the City has not maintained this property in years and she had concerns that a utility company could come in and destroy her prope rty and not return it to its original condition wit h these easement rights. Mr. Nau indicated that it was similar to terrace ar eas in front of homes which are required to be maintained by property owners but is the property o f the City so structures or other features were not allowed to be installed in these areas. Mr. Burich added that this issue came to the City’s attention as a property owner came in for a buildi ng permit to install a fence and was denied due to the presence of the right-of-way and if the area was vacated, the property would be deeded to the adjace nt property owners who could then legally install a fence if they so desired. Ms. Hansen commented that they would have to pay ad ditional property taxes on the land and still had concerns about the utility easement on their proper ty. Mr. Burich stated that every subdivision has some t ype of easements in the area and further discussed the ramifications if left as right-of-way or vacate d with a utility easement remaining.
__________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 4 September 3, 2013 Ms. Hansen stated that terraces are restored when u tility work is done however she had concerns that with the utility easement in place that they would not be responsible for damages to items such as her fence. Lynn Lorenson, City Attorney, commented that landsc aping should be restored if damaged however fencing is not included unless it would be specific ally stated in the easement documents signed with the utility company and property owners. Mr. Hinz questioned if the utility company would on ly be able to maintain existing utilities and would not be allowed to add new utilities in this area. Mr. Burich responded that they have a legal right t o be within the easement area and the property owner who desired to install a fence will not be al lowed if the right-of-way area is not vacated. Ms. Lorenson quoted from the Wisconsin State Statut e book regarding easements and their rights and concluded that they have the right to access this a rea currently as it is City right-of-way. Mr. Thoms stated that the City could have all the f encing in this area taken down as they cannot legal ly be located in the right-of-way. If this alley is v acated, all the fencing would become legal however building anything in an easement area is at the own er’s risk and questioned what utility company the easement agreement would be for. Mr. Burich replied that the utility easement docume nt dictates what can and cannot be done and the City is maintaining the easement as to statutory ri ghts. Utility companies usually provide adequate notice that any work is going to be done prior to i ts commencement. Further discussion ensued on the advantages of vaca ting this area of right-of-way, what the utility company would have the right to do, and the amount of land that would be added to each property owner’s parcel. It was determined that the taxes w ould not increase that dramatically for an addition al 800 square feet of land and if vacated, the fences already installed would become legal and would allow other property owners the right to install a fence if desired. It was also determined that the alley would not be improved upon in the future if vacated as it would no longer be City right-of-way. Jay Karner, owner of the three vacant lots on Ashla nd Street, stated that he felt it would be ludicrou s not to vacate this area and that utility companies are very conscientious about working in an easement area and he had no concerns about the vacation due to the utility easement. Motion by Nollenberger to approve the street vacati on of an alley located between Mount Vernon and Ashland Streets, from E. Smith to Libbey Avenues with the following condition: 1. A utility easement is placed on the entire vacat ed alley for any existing private utilities/structures. Seconded by Borsuk. Motion carried 7-0. III. LAND DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW F OR A MULTIPLE FAMILY APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE MARION ROAD REDEVELOPMENT AREA (431 MARION ROAD)
__________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 5 September 3, 2013 The City of Oshkosh is requesting disposition of 2.35 acres of land within the Marion Road Redevelopment area and Oshkosh River Development, L LC has submitted site plans and elevations for Development Plan Review for The Rivers II , a multiple family apartment building to be locate d on Marion Road along the Fox River. Mr. Buck presented the item and reviewed the site a nd surrounding area and stated that the land was owned by the City of Oshkosh Redevelopment Authorit y and would be sold to the petitioner if their request was approved. He reviewed the site plan an d discussed features of the development and the driveway access as well as the possibility of the n eed for a cross access agreement between this site and the vacant site to the east. He also discussed the internal pedestrian walks, signage, landscapin g and lighting plans, storm water detention plans, bu ilding elevations, and the proposed balconies for t he development which staff did not feel were aesthetic ally pleasing. He also reviewed the conditions recommended for this request. Mr. Borsuk commented that he was aware that discuss ion was transpiring with the developer however he thought the location of the proposed development was going to be adjacent to “The Rivers” apartments instead of in the middle of the remainin g lot. Allen Davis, Director of Community Development, sta ted that the development was relocated from the original site due to the amount of contamination in this area. Locating the building in the area that was remediated would be less costly than trying to plac e it adjacent to the existing apartment building as the funds that it would cost to remediate that part of the property would drive up the costs substantially. As the development is proposed, the parking lot would cap the contamination on the site. Mr. Thoms stated that the contaminated soil will ev entually leak down to this site even if capped. Mr. Davis responded that any contamination that lea ked from the site should move toward the river and not east or west of the site. He displayed on the map where the most contaminated soil is located and stated that if the building would be situated o n the contaminated soil, it could leak into the structure. He further stated that there are no gua rantees when working with a site such as this one b ut we were working with the Wisconsin Department of Na tural Resources (DNR) on the issue and taking their advice in regard to containing the contaminat ion. If buildings were located on the most contaminated area, it may require the installation of a vapor intrusion system which would increase costs to the developer. Mr. Cummings questioned the need of capping the sit e with a parking lot. Mr. Davis responded that it would be much more cost ly to attempt to develop the area. Mr. Borsuk commented that he was real uncomfortable with this parcel. Mr. Davis indicated that the parking lot must be pl aced over this area to cap the contamination however the remaining lots are still developable. Ms. Propp questioned if it would have to be a parki ng lot or could it remain as green space. Mr. Davis responded that it could be green space ho wever the safest version of this scenario is to locate a parking lot over it.
__________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 6 September 3, 2013 Ms. Propp then questioned if that small of an area would still be marketable for development. Mr. Davis replied that the Redevelopment Authority (RDA) would be meeting later in September to discuss this matter. Ms. Propp inquired if the RDA had not yet reviewed this, if we are getting ahead of ourselves by presenting the proposal to the Plan Commission at t his time. Mr. Davis responded that the RDA meets about the sa me time as the Common Council and the RDA only approves of the land disposition. The planned development requires going to both the Plan Commission and the Common Council for approval. Mr. Hinz confirmed where the most contaminated area was located as well as the building’s requirements for development. Mr. Thoms questioned the access walkway from the pu blic sidewalk to the riverwalk and why it was not part of the requirements for the development. He felt it should be required by the RDA. Mr. Davis replied that it could not be included as yet with this development as the walkway would be located on Lot 1 and this development is proposed t o be on Lot 2. Mr. Thoms felt it should be included in the conditi ons recommended for this request or officially mapped to ensure that we will have the walkway in p lace regardless of the development that may come forward at a later date for Lot 1. Discussion continued regarding the cleanup of the s ite and if it was adequate. It was determined that the DNR would be satisfied with capping it with the parking lot and the City has no additional funding budgeted for further cleanup of the contamination. The City has a good idea of what is down there and the practice of capping off a contaminated site is a common process. Mr. Cummings did not feel that a parking lot along the river was good planning. Mr. Davis indicated that this was the best barrier for intrusion of the contamination however it could be used as green space but the City would have to conf er with the DNR before proceeding with that plan. Mr. Thoms commented that he had concerns with items such as a base standard modification for density and the fact that the Plan Commission still has not seen any design standards for riverfront development. He felt we were piece-mealing the sit e developing only portions at a time. He felt that we were going to want a parking area near the river walk however he did not wish to see it right on the river. He discussed other structures in the area a nd stated his concerns with needing or wanting a 5-story building on the riverfront as it will block t he view of the river for any other developments. H e questioned whether we should handle these issues on a one-on-one basis or should we have set standards for the riverwalk area. Mr. Borsuk stated that the Commission should go wit h the Comprehensive Plan for guidance and the general planning process. The City has desired to create a more urban development in this area however redevelopment plans or vision reports would be helpful as well. Mr. Burich commented that the Commission should be considering if this development is consistent in this district.
__________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 7 September 3, 2013 Mr. Thoms inquired about what the saturation rate f or apartments was in the community and what the target market was. He felt we were putting the car t before the horse as there was not enough information provided to make an informed decision. Mr. Cummings stated that the staff report referred to the land disposition to the petitioner and questioned what the selling price would be. Mr. Davis responded that the price was $1.00. Andy Dumke, 2030 Menominee Drive, stated that he wa s present as the petitioner for this development and a market study was completed and came back favo rably. He further commented that the previously constructed apartment units they have re cently completed filled up successfully. Mr. Borsuk questioned if the apartments would be ma rket based prices and what the size of the units would be. Mr. Dumke explained that 20% of the housing units w ould be subsidized housing and the formula for calculating the market rent rates which are conside red low in this community. He stated the units would be 950 to 1035 square feet in size. Mr. Hinz inquired if he had any thoughts about plac ing the public walkway along the edge of the building. Mr. Dumke responded that it was considered but it w as too cost prohibitive. Mr. Thoms questioned aesthetically how this develop ment would compare to “The Rivers”. Mr. Dumke replied that it was very comparable howev er it had a more industrial look similar to housing units on the water in Milwaukee or Madison. Mr. Thoms then questioned how he feels about the co lumn based balconies discussed. Mr. Dumke responded that he liked the look better h owever it will cost about $80,000 more and they do not have funding in the project to cover this. Mr. Burich added that the petitioner was open to mo re decorative steel work on the structure. Mr. Borsuk inquired what the specific rental rates would be and who would be the target audience for these units. Mr. Dumke responded that the rates would be $900-$1 075 per month and was targeted for young professionals who wanted to reside near the downtow n area and not necessarily for families. The original plan was to place this development adjacen t to “The Rivers” however with the contamination issues, they are now considering placing this devel opment on Lot 2 and would develop another apartment building in between the two sites that wo uld be a smaller complex. The contamination plume cannot be removed and the parking for the dev elopment can only go in this area. He also stated that condominiums were considered however they woul d not work here. Mr. Borsuk questioned what the estimated costs woul d be to remove the remaining contaminated area.
__________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 8 September 3, 2013 Mr. Davis indicated that millions of dollars would be necessary to accomplish this and the City has received grant funding to remediate the site and TI F money was necessary as well. He further explained the costs involved and that the City coul d not pay off the overall TIF costs if the remediat ion becomes any more expensive. He discussed the scena rio if the remaining lot could not be developed and how much funding was required to pay off the TI F. He concluded with this development based on density and value makes sense for this site. Mr. Nollenberger commented that he had no issues wi th the density on this site and that a parking area for the riverwalk would be a needed amenity. Mr. Thoms inquired if the City has considered borro wing from other TIF districts to assist this TIF. Mr. Davis responded that they have thought about it and embellished somewhat on which ones could be considered. Mr. Cummings stated that there has been a lot of di scussion about a vision for the riverwalk area and he felt that Oshkosh was architecturally challenged . He also felt that we were piece-mealing things together to develop the site and that we need a vis ion for the area for guidance on what we would like to see there. Mr. Borsuk agreed but stated that he would reluctan tly support the request after further understanding of the contaminated plumed area. He further stated that the City had no vision developed for this are a and he felt they were afraid to wait for other prop osals however he would like to see some cohesive plan for the riverwalk area. Mr. Thoms commented that he felt it was paramount t o develop some type of plan as we owed this to the community and the City should target market bus inesses for this area. We also need to decide if we want park area in this vicinity or just building s. Mr. Fojtik stated that we need to determine if we w ant a vision for downtown or a vision for the riverwalk. He further commented that design standa rds that we could develop would most likely not be supported by the community. He felt we should b e developing an urban riverfront area not parking space. Mr. Hinz agreed that the City does not have a plan for this area although there is some cohesion here. He was unaware of who can develop in the area right now and the Commission needs to know what is going on and he felt better communication was neces sary. Mr. Cummings commented that a lot of cities evolved around rivers and we should look at more areas than what is in Wisconsin. He also felt a sizable rendering of the developments would help as they need a better idea of what it would look like to ma ke an informed decision. Mr. Thoms stated that both Indianapolis and Vancouv er did a good job of renovating their riverfront areas and he felt we need to identify what kind of businesses we want to attract as success breeds success. Ms. Propp commented that the Plan Commission is loo king at a better riverfront vision and 5-story apartment buildings should not line the river. She further stated that she understands the issues and
__________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 9 September 3, 2013 feels the base standard modifications were necessar y in some cases however the balconies seemed to be the only real issue and the developer has stated that it would be too costly to construct. Motion by Nollenberger to approve the land disposit ion and development plan review for a multiple family apartment development on property l ocated in the Marion Road Redevelopment Area (431 Marion Road) with the following condition s: 1) Base standard modification to setbacks; front yard (Marion Road) setback from 25 feet to 20 feet, western side yard setback from 19 feet to 10 feet, eastern side yard setback from 19 feet to 10 feet and southern rear yard (riverfront) setback from 40 feet to 8 feet 6 inches. 2) Inclusion of a fire hydrant near the building as ap proved by the Fire Department. 3) Connect the walk areas where it crosses the undergr ound parking entrance drive as approved by the Department of Community Development. 4) Base standard modification to allow the ground sign setback on north lot line from 25 feet to 13 feet. 5) Base standard modification to omit an internal park ing lot island in the west parking lot with enhanced landscaping installed in the area where th e island would be located. 6) Balconies are either column or cable-hung supported as approved by the Department of Community Development. 7) Base standard modification to allow one unit per ap proximately 1,280 square feet land area and a building height of 53 feet 6 inches. Seconded by Borsuk. Motion carried 7-0. Commission members decided to discuss items IVA and IVB together as they are in conjunction with each other. IVA. ZONE CHANGE FROM C-1 NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DIS TRICT WITH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY AND R-2 TWO FAMILY RESI DENCE DISTRICT TO R-3 MULTIPLE DWELLING DISTRICT WITH PLA NNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE 430 0 BLOCK OF JACKSON STREET This item is a request for a zone change from C-1 N eighborhood Business District with Planned Development Overlay and R-2 Two Family Residence Di strict to R-3 Multiple Dwelling District with Planned Development Overlay. IVB. DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW FOR THE CREATION OF A MULTIPLE FAMILY APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT; LAND CONSOLIDATION/CERTIFIED SURVEY MAP; AND RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION/VACATION ON PROPER TY LOCATED AT THE 4300 BLOCK OF JACKSON STREET The applicant is requesting three actions within th is petition: A. Approval of a development plan for a multiple famil y dwelling development B. Lot consolidation/combination of five parcels total ing 17.5 acres C. Right-of-way dedication and street vacation of port ions of Soda Creek and Jacktar Roads Mr. Buck presented the items and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in said area. He stated tha t the zone change had been reviewed in spring and t he Commission recommended approval at that time howeve r the item was pulled prior to proceeding to
__________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 10 September 3, 2013 the Common Council. He also explained the revision to the site plan that will connect Jacktar and Soda Creek Roads as they are planning to dedicate r ight-of-way to loop these two dead end streets to connect and provide two accesses to the development . There will also be two small fragments of both roads that will need to be vacated. He stated that the zone change to multi-family was supported as t he marketability for single family homes in this area has not been good. He reviewed the development features, the right-in/right-out only drive access on Jackson Street, curbing requirements, pedestrian walks, and providing an access to the trail system to Winnebago County Park for these proposed units as well as the existing units to the north of the s ite. He also discussed signage, landscaping, eleva tions, and the balconies and air conditioning units. He r eviewed the certified survey map, the right-of-way dedication and vacation and the conditions recommen ded for this request. Mr. Borsuk questioned if there should be a conditio n added to address the screening of the garbage dumpster area. Mr. Buck responded that code requirements provide f or it to be in an enclosed structure but the Commission could add it as a condition if they felt it necessary. Mr. Thoms inquired if anything regarding traffic fl ow patterns was reviewed as he was questioning the two accesses on the site which would be very close together. Mr. Buck replied that the Department of Transportat ion felt that these two streets were capable of handling the traffic flow and he also discussed the right-in/right-out access on Jackson Street. Mr. Thoms then inquired the reasoning for the two e ntrances on Jacktar and Soda Creek Roads. Mr. Buck responded that it was an EMS and utility v ehicle access issue. Mr. Thoms also questioned what evidence shows that we can support this number of apartment units. Mr. Burich replied that we do not perform market st udies on developments and the primary responsibility of the Plan Commission was to determ ine if the proposal is an appropriate land use in the area. Mr. Thoms commented that he had concerns with the c onstruction of too many apartment complexes creating blight in other areas of the community by rental units remaining vacant due to a saturation o f the market. Mr. Burich responded that should not be occurring a nd the development is compatible with the area. Mr. Thoms questioned when the Plan Commission would get involved in these types of discussions regarding marketability and necessity for developme nts. Mr. Fojtik indicated that this type of discussion s hould take place in some other venue and that the responsibility of the Plan Commission was to determ ine if it was appropriate land use. Mr. Burich added that the Commission should also be considering if a proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Discussion ensued on planned developments and featu res that are required as well as the public hearing process at the Plan Commission and marketab ility studies for proposed projects.
__________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 11 September 3, 2013 Mr. Borsuk commented that there may be a demand for newer and better apartment units in the community. Mr. Burich added that not approving new apartment d evelopments could also create a monopoly situation for current landlords. Mr. Fojtik stated that the Plan Commission has no f inancial risk in proposed projects and therefore should not be considering the necessity or market s uccess when reviewing proposals. Mr. Hinz questioned if when traffic patterns were r eviewed were events at the fairgrounds taken into consideration as to what kind of impact it would ha ve on the area. Vicky Redlin, representing Winnebago County Park, r esponded that since County Y has been expanded to four lanes, there have been no traffic issues in the area. A brief discussion continued regarding market studi es and the financial stability of proposed projects and it was determined that these features of a deve lopment were not part of the Plan Commission’s review responsibilities. Motion by Nollenberger to approve the zone change f rom C-1 Neighborhood Business District with Planned Development Overlay and R-2 Two Family Resi dence District to R-3 Multiple Dwelling District with Planned Development Overlay for prope rty located at the 4300 block of Jackson Street. Seconded by Propp. Motion carried 7-0. Mr. Cummings felt that the Commission needed more i nformation on what a development was going to look like at completion to make more informed de terminations. Ms. Propp commented that this area has been struggl ing to develop for some time now and questioned if staff felt that this plan is more viable than pa st proposals. Mr. Buck responded that the housing crash was the b iggest issue in the past with failed proposals for this area and the developer requesting this had a s trong track record with many other successful developments of this nature. Ms. Propp commented that the lack of curbing on the site was disturbing and questioned if the development would function properly without them. Mr. Burich replied that they will have to work out the details with the Department of Public Works and even with some compromise, they will ensure that th e site functions properly. Motion by Borsuk to approve the development plan re view for the creation of a multiple family apartment development; land consolidation/certified survey map; and right-of-way dedication/vacation on property located at the 4300 block of Jackson Street with the following conditions for the planned development: 1) Base standard modification to allow three driveway access points to the development.
__________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 12 September 3, 2013 2) Jackson Street vehicle entrance is limited to right -in/right-out traffic movements and requires the inclusion of a raised un-mountable median withi n the Jackson Street right-of-way from the existing turn lane at CTY Y south to the southern p roperty line. 3) Base standard modification to allow curbs to be ins talled only at drive entrances and around parking stalls. 4) Base standard modification to allow the combination of dedicated walks and on-pavement striping for internal pedestrian circulation, as ap proved by the Department of Community Development. 5) A minimum of a 10 foot wide paved pedestrian trail running from Jacktar Road to the east property line is installed with the location approv ed by the Winnebago County Parks Department. 6) A 10 foot wide paved pedestrian trail connecting th e terminus of the trail on the subject property running east within County Park property a nd connecting to the internal park trail system be created at the developers expense, as app roved by the Winnebago County Parks Department. 7) Base standard modification to allow three monument signs for development identification: one no taller than ten feet nor greater than 40 square feet (20 square feet per side) of sign area and two no taller than five feet nor greater than 24 sq uare feet (12 square feet per side) of sign area. 8) Grading, erosion control and stormwater plan is app roved by the Department of Public Works and the detention basin is designed without riprap above the water line and native plants be planted on the side slopes of the basin and emergen t plants on the safety shelf. 9) The air conditioning units and wood porches/balconi es on the structures be painted/stained or colored to match or compliment the buildings exteri or façade color. and the following conditions for the lot consolidat ion/combination: 1) A developer’s agreement for the construction of the public right-of-way and utilities is entered into between the petitioner and the City as approve d by the Department of Public Works. 2) A 15 foot wide pedestrian access easement is establ ished from Jacktar Road to the east property line, location to be approved by the Depar tment of Community Development. 3) Replacement of stormwater detention removed from Ou tlots 1-3 of Anders Plat of Subdivision. Seconded by Cummings. Motion carried 7-0. PLANNING DIRECTOR’S REPORT Mr. Burich reported that staff was working on the f inal language for the design standards project and staff was also beginning the zoning update process. He further stated that a focus group would be coming in next month to discuss the issues and he w as looking to find two volunteers from the Plan Commission to participate in the working group whic h was anticipated to last for approximately 18 months. Mr. Thoms questioned if a specific zoning district could be created for the riverfront area. Mr. Burich responded that they would need to discus s the matter. Mr. Burich also reported that the Middle Village pl anning process was still in progress and a neighborhood planning document would be developed.
__________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 13 September 3, 2013 He also reported that the CVS site was well under w ay in development. Mr. Borsuk stated that he would like to request tha t a discussion be held on developing a gateway plan for the Jackson Street area at a future meeting. Mr. Thoms commented that Peggy Steeno, Finance Dire ctor for the City, was leaving her position and that she was a dedicated employee who will be misse d. There being no further business, the meeting adjour ned at approximately 6:28 pm. (Borsuk/Propp) Respectfully submitted, Darryn Burich Director of Planning Services