Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes__________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 1 October 15, 2013 PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES October 15, 2013 PRESENT: Ed Bowen, Jeffrey Thoms, Thomas Fojtik, Jo hn Hinz, Steve Cummings, Robert Vajgrt, Karl Nollenberger EXCUSED: David Borsuk, Kathleen Propp, Donna Lohry STAFF: Darryn Burich, Director of Planning Service s; David Buck, Principal Planner; Jeffrey Nau, Associate Planner; Allen Davis, Director of Co mmunity Development; 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 October 1, 2013 were approved as pre sented. (Vajgrt/Hinz) I. TWO-LOT LAND DIVISION/CERTIFIED SURVEY MAP AT 18 22 SIMPSON STREET The owner/petitioner are requesting a two-lot land division/certified survey map from one existing parcel containing a total of 0.360 acres (15,727 sq uare feet). Sizes of the proposed lots are as foll ows: Lot 1 = 0.172 Acres, 7,500 square feet Lot 2 = 0.188 Acres, 8,227 square feet Mr. Nau presented the item and reviewed the site an d surrounding area. He discussed the history of the lot as well as the fiber optic line that extend s across the west end of the parcel however it will not hamper the development of the site as it is located in the front yard setback area. He further stated that the lot was proposed for residential use which is c onsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Motion by Vajgrt to approve the two-lot land divisi on/certified survey map at 1822 Simpson Street. Seconded by Bowen. Motion carried 6-0. II. TW O-LOT LAND DIVISION/CERTIFIED SURVEY MAP AT 3764 JA CKSON STREET The owner/petitioner is requesting a two-lot land d ivision/certified survey map from one existing parcel containing a total of 63,831 + square feet. Sizes of the proposed lots are as fo llows: Lot 1 = 31,890 Square Feet Lot 2 = 31,941 Square Feet Mr. Burich presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area and stated that the land division meets the size requirements however the CS M does not show all the information necessary to recommend approval of the proposed land division un less the petitioner can address some of the concerns regarding this request. The City’s Zoning Ordinance for land division criteria requires nonagricultural divisions to be compatible with adj acent land uses and concerns relating to the shed o n Lot 2 that has no approved use or demonstrates that it meets building code requirements for __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 2 October 15, 2013 occupancy. It appears to be currently used as a st orage area which is not allowed in a C-1 zoning district. The shed could be removed or the petitio ner could find a re-use for it that would be allowa ble in its zoning district. The other options would be to rezone the property to a manufacturing classification or request a planned development ame ndment to allow the lot to be used for manufacturing purposes in a neighborhood business d istrict. Staff is recommending to lay over the item until the CSM can be revised to show all featu res on the site and to provide more information regarding the potential re-use of the large shed. Mr. Thoms questioned if the petitioner’s use of the site was nonconforming currently. Mr. Burich responded that the petitioner had attemp ted to obtain a planned development for boat storage on the site some time ago and was denied by the Plan Commission. He is currently in violation for the storage use on the site however a correctio n notice has not yet been issued. Mr. Thoms then questioned what the C-2 use was to t he south of the site. Mr. Burich replied that there was a filling station on that site. Roy Schumacher, 3764 Jackson Street, stated that th e reason for the land division request was due to the nonconforming use on the site. He further stat ed that the homestead was on one lot and the shed o n the north portion of the property was used for stor age purposes. He was attempting to clean up the si te and heard that the property to the north of his par cel has sold and the intent was to use it for retai l store use. He stated he would like to bring his property into a conforming use and that the home was in good condition but one parcel was residential in us e and the other parcel was commercial. Mr. Thoms commented that if the petitioner desired to bring his property into a conforming use that th e storage use present on the site currently was not a conforming use in this zoning district. Mr. Schumacher stated that he wanted to make the lo t with the storage shed on it into an antique store . Mr. Thoms questioned if an antique store would be a conforming use in this zoning district. Mr. Burich responded that the parcel was in a plann ed development zoning district and therefore would be required to come through Plan Commission and Com mon Council for a planned development approval but that an antique store would be a permi ssible use. Mr. Thoms then questioned if it was still necessary to lay over the request until the November 5 th meeting. Mr. Burich indicated that staff had no plans for th e use submitted at this time and does not know if there are sanitary services available for Lot 2 and with boats presently stored on the site, there wer e concerns about the use. He further stated that sta ff would like to first see a land use plan prior to deciding if the land division should be approved or denied and more information was necessary to make that decision. Mr. Thoms inquired if a one meeting lay over would be long enough for the necessary information to be provided. Mr. Burich responded that the Plan Commission had 9 0 days by statute to come to a determination so if necessary the request could be laid over beyond the November 5 th meeting. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 3 October 15, 2013 Motion by Vajgrt to lay over the land division/cert ified survey map at 3764 Jackson Street in order for the petitioner to provide the following: 1. Provide additional information on the CSM such as a ll structures, parking areas, utilities, and easements. 2. Provide information regarding utility services to t he large shed on proposed Lot 2. 3. Provide information on proposed use of the large sh ed on proposed Lot 2. Seconded by Nollenberger. Motion carried 5-0-1. (Bowen abstained) III. ZONE CHANGE FROM M-3 GENERAL INDUSTRIAL DISTRI CT TO M-2 CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2212 MONTANA STREET The owner/petitioner is requesting a zone change fr om M-3 General Industrial District to M-2 Central Industrial District. Mr. Burich presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the zoning classifications and land use in said area which inc luded C-2 General Commercial District, M-3 General Industrial District, and M-2 Central Industrial Dis trict. He further stated that the M-3 zoning distr ict was mainly used in industrial parks where the M-2 z oning district was utilized for less intensive uses . The current M-3 zoning designation significantly re stricts what can be done with the parcels and staff will be looking at the whole area in the future to determine if additional zone changes should be considered. Mr. Hinz commented that the Plan Commission held a workshop on reviewing the zoning in the entire community and questioned if this zone change was pa rt of a broader plan. Mr. Burich responded that he did not know how it wo uld be handled at this point but the request was to change from one manufacturing zoning classification to another which was consistent with the current uses seen in this area and should not impact any re mapping of zoning districts to be considered in the future. Mr. Thoms stated that the request to down zone by t he property owner appeared to be spot zoning to him. Mr. Burich indicated that both M-2 and M-3 zoning c lassifications were manufacturing uses and there were other sites in the area zoned M-2 as well so h e did not consider it spot zoning. Mr. Buck added that the M-2 zoning for this propert y matches up with other sites in the area. Motion by Vajgrt to approve the zone change from M-3 General Industrial District to M-2 Central Industrial District for property located at 2212 Montana Street. Seconded by Nollenberger. Motion carried 6-0. IV. ZONE CHANGE FROM R-2 TWO-FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTR ICT TO M-2 CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 663 W. 3 RD AVENUE __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 4 October 15, 2013 The City is requesting a zone change from R-2 Two-F amily Residence District to M-2 Central Industrial District to allow the combination of two parcels and expand the existing public institution al use. Mr. Nau presented the item and reviewed the site an d surrounding area as well as the zoning classifications and land use in said area. He expl ained the reasoning for the zone change request and stated that, if approved, the parcel would be combi ned with the adjacent parcel to the east for use by the University. He stated the zone change was cons istent with the Comprehensive Plan and that the City may be considering broader zone changes at a f uture date for this area. Mr. Cummings arrived at 4:29 pm. There was no discussion on this item. Motion by Vajgrt to approve the zone change from R-2 Two-Family Residence District to M-2 Central Industrial District for property located at 663 W. 3 rd Avenue. Seconded by Bowen. Motion carried 7-0. V. PUBLIC HEARING ON PROJECT PLAN AND ALLOCATION AM ENDMENT TO TAX INCREMENTAL DISTRICT #7 SOUTHWEST INDUSTRIAL PA RK The Department of Community Development requests ap proval of a Project Plan Allocation Amendment that would permit sharing of tax incremen t from TID #7 Southwest Industrial Park to recipients TID #20 South Shore Redevelopment Area a nd TID #21 Fox River Corridor Project. Both TIDs #20 and #21 were created as blighted area TIDs and thus eligible to become increment recipient districts. Attached to this staff report is the P roject Plan Amendment document. Mr. Burich presented the item and explained the rea soning for the amendment request and that the increments could offset the debt service and costs in TID #20 and #21. He indicated that this allocation amendment was keeping with state statute s and the tables reflect the cash flow analysis and directed the Commissioners to refer to pages 9 thro ugh 11 in the Project Plan. He explained that the City is not adding more increment and that Table #1 on page 9 shows the revenues and expenditures as well as anticipated transfers at this time from Tax Increment District #7 where Tables #2 and 3 show the revenues and expenditures for TID #20 and #21 r espectively. He further discussed the details of these tables. Mr. Fojtik questioned what the precedent was for th is and has sharing of surplus increment between districts worked in the past. Mr. Burich responded that it has been done in the p ast with TID #7 and #9 allocating increments to TID #13 and #16. Allen Davis, Director of Community Development, add ed that TID #7 has also allocated surplus increment to TID #24 and this practice has worked o ut very well in the past. Mr. Thoms questioned what the impact was of this al location amendment on citizens and for projects not to borrow to other projects, if a successful de velopment could lower property taxes. Mr. Davis responded that it depends on the citizens however in the City’s case, the City, County, and school districts all benefit from the revenue in TI D #7. Closing this TID would lower taxes however __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 5 October 15, 2013 general obligation debts would have to pay for defi cits in the less successful TID #20 and #21 so spreading the benefits of TID #7 offsets these cost s. Mr. Thoms clarified that the city has to pay intere st payments on general obligation debt for the TIDs that are not successful and the borrowing from TID #7 would offset the costs. Mr. Davis confirmed that was the case. Mr. Thoms stated that TID #7 can only be open until 2017 which would buy time for the other two TID districts to pay for themselves. Mr. Davis confirmed this and stated that TID #20 an d #21 could retire their debt in the coming years by the allocation from TID #7 without citizens payi ng for it. Mr. Thoms stated that what we are using from TID #7 is sufficient to pay the principal and interest payments for TID #20 & #21. Mr. Nollenberger commented that the concept is that tax revenues of developed areas in TID districts refinance redevelopment of other older parts of the community. Mr. Hinz inquired about the payoff of the increment s over all the years of the TID, could we pay off now if desired and eliminate the payment of interes t. Mr. Davis indicated that the city cannot accelerate all the payments as some of the debts do not allow prepayment until a certain date. Mr. Fojtik opened the public hearing at 4:42 pm. A s there were no citizens present to comment, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Nollenberger questioned if the other taxing ent ities have an opportunity for input and approval on the proposed amendment. Mr. Burich responded that the Plan Commission, Comm on Council, and Joint Review Board all review and approve the proposed amendment. He noted that the Joint Review Board is comprised of representatives of Winnebago County, the Oshkosh Ar ea School District and the Fox Valley Technical College District. Mr. Thoms requested further explanation of the over lapping taxing jurisdictions. Mr. Burich replied that in some communities there a re different school districts or other types of special districts involved however in the City’s ca se, there are no changing overlapping districts in the City. Mr. Thoms also questioned if TID #20 and #21 were c reated due to the fact that they were blighted areas. Mr. Burich responded affirmatively and reviewed the resolution approving the project plan allocation amendment which contains the findings. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 6 October 15, 2013 Mr. Thoms inquired if the cap limitation will not g o up and if there was no obligation on TID #7 to disallow this amendment. Mr. Burich responded negatively and stated that we were not adding any area to the TID district boundary so it would not affect the cap. Motion by Nollenberger to approve the Project Plan and Allocation Amendment to Tax Incremental District #7 Southwest Industrial Park. Seconded by Vajgrt. Motion carried 7-0. There being no further business, the meeting adjour ned at approximately 4:45 pm. (Vajgrt/Bowen) Respectfully submitted, Darryn Burich Director of Planning Services