Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes__________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 1 October 20, 2015 PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES October 20, 2015 PRESENT: Ed Bowen, Jeffrey Thoms, Kathleen Propp, Gary Gray, Donna Lohry, Robert Vajgrt, Karl Nollenberger EXCUSED: David Borsuk, Thomas Fojtik, John Hinz, Steve Cummings STAFF: Darryn Burich, Director of Planning Services; David Buck, Principal Planner; Jeffrey Nau, Associate Planner; Steve Gohde, Assistant Director of Public Works; Deborah Foland, Recording Secretary Chairperson Propp called the meeting to order at 4:00 pm. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. The minutes of October 6, 2015 were approved as presented. (Nollenberger/Thoms) I. LANDMARK DESIGNATION 50 WEST 6TH AVENUE Pursuant to 30-76 (F) (1) (c) of the Oshkosh Municipal Code, Andy Dumke – property owner, has submitted a nomination for Landmark Designation of the former H.P. Schmidt Milling Company building located at 50 West 6th Avenue. The property is being nominated under the following eligibility criteria specified in the Code: 1. The property exemplifies the cultural and economic history of the community. 2. The property reflects distinctive and important elements for the City’s cultural, social and economic history. Mr. Buck presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in this area. He explained the criteria that needed to be met for a property to obtain a Landmark designation and discussed the process followed to do so and the purpose of the Landmark designation. He also discussed the review and approval process of exterior alterations once a property acquires a Landmark designation. He reviewed the six criteria to be considered for a property to be eligible for a Landmark designation and the two criteria that apply to this request. He further stated that the Landmarks Commission reviewed and approved of this request last week and discussed the history of the structure which was built in 1883 and its uses from that time to present. He also discussed the benefits to the property owner to have the structure designated as a Landmark and reviewed past and current photos of the site. He also discussed the ability of the owner to utilize the Historic Building Code when redeveloping the structure. Mr. Bowen arrived at 4:15 pm. Mr. Thoms questioned if there was any discussion with the property owner as to having some type of history of the building displayed on the site. Mr. Buck responded that the owner could obtain a historic plaque to display and that the Landmark designation was to preserve as much of the exterior of the structure as possible. Any future redevelopment of the site will come back to the Plan Commission as a planned development in the future and a historic marker of some type could be requested at that time. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 2 October 20, 2015 Mr. Gray inquired why this property would be a planned development. Mr. Buck indicated that a planned development was laid over this section of the city as it is both a redevelopment area and a TIF district and the city wanted greater control over sites when redevelopment occurred. Mr. Gray then commented that on page 10 of the staff report that the photo displayed some outlined areas and questioned if those were easements. Mr. Buck responded affirmatively. Ms. Lohry questioned the size of the lot. Mr. Buck responded that it was very small and completely covered by the structure however he did not know the exact dimensions of the property. Ms. Lohry then questioned if the owner had parking for the site. Mr. Buck displayed the areas on the property that could be utilized for parking and that the property owner was in discussions with neighboring property owners to utilize other areas to accommodate parking once the site is redeveloped. Motion by Vajgrt to approve the Landmark designation for property located at 50 W. 6th Avenue. Seconded by Gray. Motion carried 7-0. II. ZONE CHANGE FROM C-1 NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DISTRICT TO R-2 TWO FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT FOR PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF E. PARKWAY AVENUE AND BOYD STREET The City is requesting a change from C-1 Neighborhood Business District to R-2 Two-Family Residence District. Mr. Nau presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in this area. He explained that the reason for the zone change request was due to a property owner who was experiencing difficulty in selling their residential property due to its commercial zoning classification and reviewed the current land use in the area of which none of the parcels possess a commercial use. He also discussed the lot sizes which would limit the use of any of the parcels within the subject site to single family homes only and reviewed the City’s Comprehensive Plan land use map which designates this area as residential therefore the C-1 zoning classification is not consistent with this plan. He further explained that the existing uses will remain the same and that commercial development in this area was not likely due to the size of the parcels and that even if parcels would be combined, it would not have adequate area to meet setback or parking requirements for a commercial use. Ms. Propp inquired if at some point there were commercial uses in this location. Mr. Nau responded that the area has been zoned C-1 since 1965 however there was only one parcel at that intersection that had a commercial use at one time. He further explained that if the zone change __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 3 October 20, 2015 would be approved, a property owner could obtain a conditional use permit or an adaptive reuse approval to re-establish a commercial type use at this location in the future. Mr. Gray inquired if all the property owners within the subject site area had agreed to the zone change proposed. Mr. Nau replied that a letter was sent out to the property owners within the subject site explaining the proposal and he only received one call inquiring about the request and that party had no objections. Motion by Bowen to approve a zone change from C-1 Neighborhood Business District to R-2 Two Family Residence District for property located at the intersection of E. Parkway Avenue and Boyd Street. Seconded by Vajgrt. Motion carried 7-0. III. TWO-LOT LAND DIVISION/CERTIFIED SURVEY MAP AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR THE CREATION OF A MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF OREGON STREET AND WEST RIPPLE AVENUE The applicant is requesting two actions within this petition: A. Two-lot land division/Certified Survey Map from one existing parcel containing a total of 34.85 acres B. Approval of a development plan for a multiple-family residential dwelling development Mr. Buck presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in this area. He reviewed the area proposed for the land division and stated that the property was attached to the City of Oshkosh in June of 2015. He reviewed the City’s Comprehensive Plan for the area in 1993 which reflected mainly industrial uses and also reviewed the updated Comprehensive Plan from 2005 which reflected a change to more residential uses for this area. He further discussed the proposed two-lot land division and the planned development which was for Lot 2 only and reviewed the certified survey map which met the City’s code requirements for a land division with the condition that an additional 7 feet of right-of-way be dedicated along Oregon Street frontage and a wetland delineation is supplied to the Department of Public Works prior to its approval. He also discussed that utilities would need to be extended to service this area and reviewed the site plan which was proposed to contain 5 identical buildings and further described the layout of the site. He also discussed the density of the development and the access drives to the site which would be on both Ripple Avenue and Oregon Street. He further discussed the base standard modification for curbing within the development, the pedestrian walkways, and the detention basin which was proposed to be both functional and for aesthetic purposes. He displayed on the site plan the location of the identification sign and reviewed a rendering of the proposed sign including the panel contained within it that was not identified as to purpose but noted that the use of an electronic message center would not be allowed in a residential district. The petitioner was requesting a base standard modification for the size of the sign which staff is in support of but also had the sign located within the setback area which staff would not support as there was adequate room to locate the sign out of the required setback area. He reviewed the landscape plan which was deficient in quantities for the City’s landscape requirements and would have to be adjusted to meet code requirements in addition to a condition recommended to have plant materials designed for screening/buffering at the northeast and southwest corners of the site where existing homes are located. He also discussed the detention basin on site which would be a wet basin and discussed the Airport Zoning Traffic Pattern District (Air 5 Zone) which had been discussed with staff and representatives of the airport in regard to wildlife mitigation for the basin area to avoid __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 4 October 20, 2015 hazards to airport operations. He reviewed the elevations for the development and a rendering of the proposed apartment buildings as well as the conditions recommended for the land division and for the planned development request. Ms. Lohry questioned the number of units proposed for the development. Mr. Buck responded that it was eight two-bedroom units and four one-bedroom units in each building for a total of 60 units. Mr. Gray inquired if Lot 1 would also be a planned development. Mr. Buck indicated that the entire property possessed an R-3 zoning classification with a planned development overlay which allows the City approval of the development plan on both sites. He further explained that any future development on Lot 1 would come through the Plan Commission and Common Council approval process. Mr. Gray then asked for clarification of where the City boundaries were in this location. Mr. Buck displayed on the map where the City boundaries were located in respect to what areas were within the Town and within the City. Mr. Gray also questioned condition #6 relating to wildlife mitigation being provided and who determined if wildlife was becoming a hazard. Mr. Buck responded that the airport would be the entity to make that decision. Ms. Propp questioned if there was a driveway around the entire exterior of the development. Mr. Buck displayed on the site plan the location where drive aisles would be located. Ms. Propp commented that there would be no driveway or drive aisle located on the south side of the development. Mr. Buck responded affirmatively. Ms. Propp also asked for clarification of the areas for the pedestrian connections. Mr. Buck displayed on the site plan the location of the pedestrian connections within the development. Mr. Thoms inquired if this development would be market based housing units. Mr. Buck responded affirmatively. Ms. Lohry inquired if there was any area designated for children to play within the development site. Mr. Buck indicated that there was no specific “tot lot” depicted on the site although there was adequate green space and this type of feature was not required for the development however the Commission could request such a feature if they felt it necessary. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 5 October 20, 2015 Mr. Gray commented about the new zoning ordinance proposing that entrances must be facing the street. Mr. Buck indicated that the side facing Oregon Street would be where the garages for the development would be located. Joe Goldberger, 13460 N. Silver Fox Drive, Mequon, stated that he was the attorney representing the developer and that any modifications to the landscape plan and pedestrian walkways can be adjusted accordingly to meet the City’s code requirements and they would work with City staff on this issue. Chris Slater, President of Premier Real Estate Management, 19105 W. Capital Drive, Brookfield, discussed their apartment management facilities which operate apartment developments in nine states. He explained that they were looking to develop all two-bedroom units and the configuration stated in the submittal was incorrect. He further explained that there would be 5 buildings with all two- bedroom units which would be a market rate development with rental costs of $900 monthly. He further discussed the types of tenants this development anticipated to attract and the deficiency in the landscaping mentioned which he indicated would be adjusted to add the necessary trees and shrubs to meet code requirements. He also discussed the balconies which he indicated would match or compliment the building’s exterior as stated in the recommended conditions. He discussed the lack of a playground area on the site which from their experience creates issues in apartment complexes and that there was no need for this type of amenity. He stated their company has built 2000 apartment units within the last 18 months and that the parcel is properly zoned for the proposed use and the development would add $100,000 in tax base to the city. Mr. Nollenberger left at 4:58 pm. Mr. Gray questioned if these units would be rental apartments or condominiums. Mr. Slater responded that the units would be rentals and although they have private entrances, they were not going to be marketed as condominiums. Mr. Gray then questioned what type of building materials will be used for the development. Mr. Slater presented a materials board for review with samples of the shingles, shakes and siding that would be utilized. He explained that the color of brick was not included as it had not yet been chosen and they intended to discuss this aspect with City staff for their recommendation. Ms. Propp questioned if they were changing the number of units for the development. Mr. Slater replied that they were proposing 12 two-bedroom units in each structure rather than the initial proposal however the total number of units would remain as 60 units and the building footprints will not be changed. Thomas Wood, Harris & Associates, 2718 N. Meade Street, Appleton, the petitioner for this request stated that the configuration of one and two bedroom units had been changed to all two bedroom units and that the decision to change the layout occurred after the plans had been submitted. He discussed the features for the development such as all the units having a private entrance and that there would be no central corridor in the building for access to the units. He acknowledged that they are lacking a few sidewalk extensions on the site plan and have to address grading issues and would then add the necessary pedestrian walkways excluded. He discussed the navigable stream that flows south to north __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 6 October 20, 2015 on the property and stated that it was regulated by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, (DNR), and that their approval was required for the construction of the detention basin and that they already obtained a permit for this and the drainage for the basin would be self contained. He further explained that they followed the city requirements for this process and the runoff from this site will be equal to or less than what currently exists. He also discussed the deficiency of landscaping mentioned and stated that entrance landscaping will be added and the development would meet the City code requirements for the landscape quantities and locations. He discussed the maintenance garage and leasing office to be located in the center of the development and that the sewer and water service will be owned and maintained privately and those services would be provided for the development with no expense to the city. Mr. Gray questioned the use of the maintenance shop on the property. Mr. Woods clarified that the maintenance shop would be for the storage of equipment for the maintenance of the development. Ms. Propp questioned if the recommended conditions placed on this request were acceptable to the petitioner. Mr. Woods responded affirmatively and stated that they would work with City staff and meet all the recommended conditions. John Terzynski, 3812 Red Oak Court, stated that he has three children and explained that he has helped them ride their bikes to the city and that there are no sidewalks on Oregon Street and it is a couple of miles to reach the city limits. He discussed the traffic on Oregon Street that he described as hectic and that the speed limit on Ripple Avenue is 45 mph. He further discussed the traffic generated from Oshkosh Corporation which he felt was heavy and that the Generac facility is also located at this intersection across from the subject site and their storage of equipment on site and the semi trucks that access it. He continued to discuss the industrial uses in the area such as Evco that also has trucks accessing their site and the industrial park yet to be developed. He felt there was no place for children to go in this area and that it was a safety issue and that the developer could add a playground to the site for a safe area for children to play. Mr. Gray inquired if Mr. Terzynski was suggesting that the development should not be approved due to traffic concerns. Mr. Terzynski responded affirmatively. Mr. Gray questioned if the traffic problems still exist without this development moving forward. Mr. Terzynski replied that he felt it was a dangerous road and that the area school could not accommodate the additional children living at the apartment development. Kimberly Green, 190 W. Ripple Avenue, stated that she was pleased to hear that the developer was willing to increase the landscaping as they would be removing a large number of mature trees due to this development. She further stated that her family had just built their home there two years ago located across from farm fields and evergreens which was both aesthetically attractive and served as a wind barrier for their property. She discussed the flooding issues in the area and that the water flows north on Oregon Street and east on Ripple Avenue and that there was a navigable stream located on this property. She stated that their sump pump runs continually in summer and distributed photos of __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 7 October 20, 2015 the flooding issues and discussed the flow of the stream which is fast and that the ditch was washed out this last spring. Her children are not allowed to play in this area due to safety concerns and she felt the increased impervious surface will increase the runoff onto her property. She also discussed her concerns with the materials proposed for the development as they are identical to her home and she felt it could cause confusion and result in people coming to her property in error creating a safety and privacy concern. She stated she did not want people accessing her property and the development would cause an invasion of her privacy. She discussed that her family previously lived on Jackson Street and moved to this location as their neighborhood was invaded with rental properties and that they moved to this rural location to get away from this type of situation. She felt the development of this apartment complex would place her family’s health, safety and welfare in jeopardy. Mr. Gray asked about the detention basin to be constructed and if it would be able to deal with the runoff from the development of this site. Steve Gohde, Assistant Director of Public Works, indicated that the ordinance will require that the runoff from this development to be less than what currently exists today. Ms. Lohry questioned if the Commission does not approve this development, if this same development would fit on the other lot within the certified survey map. Mr. Gohde responded that the development would have to be re-designed to be able to relocate it to Lot 1 of this parcel. Mr. Bowen left at 5:20 pm. William Scott, 4313 Northstoll Avenue, Shorewood, an attorney representing the Ripple Avenue Consortium which consists of 14 area property owners, distributed of list of topics to the Commission that he would be discussing. He stated that there were 43 people represented from the area and first discussed matters pertaining to flooding which the topics listed were waters of the United States, recent reconstruction of the culvert, the detention pond moved out of the shoreland zone, and the developer to be required to obtain a WPDES permit relating to the outfall to a navigable water. He discussed the Cooperative Plan developed between the City and the Town of Black Wolf; the navigable stream and the new rules relating to it which are more expansive than previously and the need for the Commission to be briefed on what water issues fall under this new rule. He also discussed the flooding issues and the need to reconstruct the culvert with the existing land uses in place and his doubts that the detention basin will contain the water runoff from this site in addition to the upstream water from other areas that flows to this site. He further discussed concerns relating to the flooding issues and the potential affect on adjacent property owners’ wells and the additional flooding impacts due to climate change effects. He did not feel the detention basin would be effective and that it should be moved out of the shoreland zone area. He then discussed the rail crossing over Ripple Avenue and the trains that are stopped on Ripple Avenue blocking traffic and the need to account for emergency services which may not be able to reach the property due to this issue. He discussed the 45 mph speed limit on Ripple Avenue and the inappropriateness of a multi-family development in a rural setting. He discussed the traffic issues due to the manufacturing uses in the area and the lack of deceleration or acceleration lanes in this plan and that the developer should be required to construct these as well as turn lanes. He discussed that the development should have to construct infrastructure to address issues such as bus stops, child play areas, public transportation and sidewalks. He felt that the lack of sidewalks or playgrounds would result in roads and the detention basin becoming play areas for children and its negative impact on health, safety and welfare. He also felt that the other lot could be dedicated as park land. He next discussed the concern that Ripple Avenue is the flight path for the EAA and airport and the dangers __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 8 October 20, 2015 related to the area being subject to evacuation due to this aspect. He felt that the EAA event will increase in size and the development should not be located within its flight path as it was creating a safety risk. He discussed that the development would be surrounded by town properties and the density would be placing people in harm’s way and that there were abandoned areas from big box stores within the city that could be utilized for this development. He next discussed the wetland designation and studies and that the wetland delineation or no wetland determination should be completed for staff review and public comment before the development is approved. He proceeded with discussion on environmental concerns as the navigable stream flows into Lake Winnebago and the potential of pollutants being washed into the stream and the increase of impervious surface that will result in the flow and volume of water speeding up increasing this issue. He continued discussion on the shoreland designation which he felt 50% of this property is shoreland which needs to be controlled as if the water flowage is not controlled properly, it will create damage to the surrounding area. He discussed the scenic beauty of the navigable stream which he thought was called Naomis Creek and the public’s right to enjoy it. He next covered the Ordinary High Water Mark issue as he questioned if it is accurate and felt that a new determination should be made as it could affect where features for this proposed development will be located. He stated that the maps do not show this as being located within a flood plain and he felt that a decision on this project should be postponed until this could be further reviewed. He discussed the lack of appropriate infrastructure in place to support this development and that the sanitary and storm sewer would be maintained by the developer which he thought was to be maintained by the city as part of the cooperative agreement between the City and Town. He discussed the other infrastructure that should be present before the development moves forward such as fire hydrants, utilities, water, curb and gutter, roadway improvements, public transportation, sidewalks, play areas, and bike and walking paths. He stated that they want to encourage “smart growth” and that this development is “dumb growth” and the group he represents objects to the certified survey map and the density of the development and do not feel that this is in the public’s interest. Mr. Gray commented that traffic related issues should be taken up with the Traffic Advisory Board not the Plan Commission and that they should contact Jim Collins from the Transportation Department to address the reduction of the speed limit in this area as this issue could be addressed. He also commented that the developer has received some type of permit from the DNR and would like that issue clarified. He also commented on the issue raised of trains blocking Ripple Avenue and that it is a common problem in Oshkosh and other cities as the railroad is a major transportation method. He further stated that the railroad runs directly through Oshkosh and there is no bypass method to prevent train stoppage. Mr. Thoms questioned why many of these issues brought up are considered a problem for this development but not for the residents that already live in this location as their families have obviously survived there despite all the traffic issues, hazards due to the EAA event and its flight path, train stoppages, and the lack of infrastructure. He questioned why these concerns are more important for this proposed development than for the other multiple homes and manufacturing uses located in this area. He stated he did not understand why these concerns are not a problem now but will be if and when this development is approved. Mr. Scott responded that the issue was primarily the density of the development and that the residents living there now chose to move to a rural area and their children are cared for and the property is zoned to be agriculturally used. The density of this development will compound these issues by the additional population in the area. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 9 October 20, 2015 Mr. Thoms then questioned how many more children or how much more traffic will be at this location due to this development and were any studies performed to support these concerns. Mr. Scott indicated that they would like to see traffic studies completed as there will be a lot of parking stalls within this development and there is no way to tell how many children and vehicles will be at this location. Mr. Thoms commented that he did not understand how this development was any different than the new apartment complex on Jackson Street and that he drives this road on weekends and does not see any issues. He further commented that 60 residential homes in this area will generate as much traffic as the apartment development. Mr. Scott stated that if this was a totally dry area, the same problems would not occur and that adding the complexity of this development by the navigable stream was creating more concerns and issues. Ms. Lohry inquired about the area school as she assumed there would be children in this development and questioned if the school would have the capacity to accommodate the additional students. Sharon Wagner, 4103 Oregon Street, stated she was a teacher at Lakeside School and they had sufficient capacity to accept 23 more students. She further stated that the school accommodates grades K through 5 and have added six classrooms to allow for additional children in this school district. She commented that she has children and it is a dangerous area and that the children at the apartment development need a place to play. She further discussed that her family chose to live there and they have a yard for them to play in and that the developers need to provide an area for children to play on their site. Wanda Danhauer, 4078 Oregon Street, stated that the traffic is heavy in this area in addition to the truck traffic from Oshkosh Corporation where she works. She discussed the safety and flooding issues and they have added an addition to their home and that the sump pump runs continually. She stated that she was not in favor of this development as it does not fit into the scheme and that this property was attached to the city without their knowledge or approval. She further discussed the traffic concerns which she stated did not slow down until after 6:00 pm and that it was not feasible to place this type of development here. She also discussed the springs on the site which were not evaluated prior to this proposal moving forward. Bob Schrickel, 177 W. Ripple Avenue, stated he owned the farm to the east of this site and every spring the water flows across the farm field in between this site and his property to his land. He felt this development is going to add to this problem and re-assessing the high water mark should be done prior to any approval for this project. He stated that the ditch along Ripple Avenue fills with water up to the road and he did not feel that the detention basin on site will be able to handle this capacity. Larry Last, 3827 Red Oak Court, stated that he had concerns with what is going to change with this development if approved. He discussed that in 2007, there was a proposal to develop a softball complex in this area but it did not move forward as the zone change to allow it to be constructed was not approved. He stated that he brought the notes from the Aviation Committee if anyone would like to review them and that state law provides protection for the airport operations for a 3-mile jurisdiction and that the Air 5 Zone does not allow for this type of use. He further discussed the airport overlay which is established to deter catastrophic accidents and if softball diamonds were not allowed to be built in this area, an apartment development should not be allowed. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 10 October 20, 2015 Sara Schrickel, 177 W. Ripple Avenue, stated that this development would be surrounded by town properties and residents hunt in these fields and questioned if the residents living in these apartments understand the hunting season and the risks involved with being outdoors during this time. She also discussed the traffic issues particularly during shift changes at the area manufacturing uses and commented that the road was not busy during evening hours and on weekends when the plants were not running. She further stated that the idea of adding sidewalks in this area was not very feasible as their properties were not little lots as in the city and this development would not be harmonious with the surrounding properties. Sheree Zellner, 3669 Oregon Street, stated that they purchased their land for their home in the 1970’s and there was very little traffic in the area at that time and it has grown to accommodate 12,400 vehicles per day now. She further discussed that the land in this area was annexed into the city in 1980 and zoned for industrial use and now their property is surrounded by industries. She further discussed the businesses in this area and how the whole area has been an unorganized scattered development over the years. She further discussed that no one told them that this was going to be developed in this fashion back in 1976 and questioned if the residents of the apartments would be aware that they would have to listen to constant noise from the area industries, trains and heavy traffic. She stated she had concerns with who was going to protect the people who would be renting these apartments. Shannon Lett, 150 W. Ripple Avenue, stated that the airport zoning used to only allow two houses per acre and it has been increased to 20 per acre. She questioned why it was increased and will it be changed back in the future. Steve Sorenson, stated that his mother-in-law lives at 3682 Oregon Street and his wife would eventually inherit her property. He explained that the vast majority of the residents did not know the meaning of an R-3 zoning designation or a planned development and that the property was annexed into the city and sold to a developer. He discussed the planned development designation and the tremendous power that it gives the city when requiring certain amenities, infrastructure or other features for the site. He further stated that if the city wants a multi-family development in this area the apartment complexes should be pulled away from the roadway and have it blended into the area more appropriately. He felt that sidewalks and curbing should be installed and that this is the city’s chance to do these improvements with someone else’s money and not at the taxpayer’s expense. He did not feel there should be any exit onto Oregon Street and that the only exit should be on Ripple Avenue. He further stated that he did not know if the Oshkosh Police and Fire Department’s have reviewed this development as he did not feel there was adequate room for fire trucks to turn around within this site and that the units should have two exits and only have one. He also stated his concerns with the detention basin as there was no fencing surrounding it and the Commission should take this opportunity to request additional requirements under the planned development or wait to make a decision after further research can be done. He felt a drainage plan study should be reviewed and the planned development overlay allows for the developer to provide park area which could be placed on the other lot. He felt this was necessary as this site was not in walking or driving distance to anything and more multi-family projects could be developed and the area on Lot 1 should be dedicated to park land. He further stated that there was no justification for the lot division and that there was no bus pick-up or drop-off area designated on this site and there should be a sheltered area constructed for this purpose preferably on Ripple Avenue. He felt that the Commission should take the time to ensure that the development is something that would work for everyone. Mr. Gray commented that if the neighbors were not aware of the R-3 zoning designation given to this site and questioned how the information would be spread about this change. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 11 October 20, 2015 Mr. Sorenson responded that the residents in this area live in the town and everyone on Oregon Street and Ripple Avenue should have been notified when the property was attached to the city and assigned a new zoning designation. Mr. Vajgrt commented that there was reference made to the apartment complexes only having one exit and he was looking at the renderings of the units and they do possess more than one exit. Mr. Sorenson stated that he was not referring to one exit from the structure but only one exit from the parking lot. Mr. Vajgrt then commented on the remarks regarding that there was not adequate room for fire trucks to access this site and he stated that this was not true as there was plenty of room for access to the development. He stated that he had 32 years of experience working for the Oshkosh Fire Department and he did not see any problems with emergency vehicles getting in and out of the site and the fact that the train had stoppage on Ripple Avenue was also not an issue. He stated that the trains run through the city and have areas that the trains stop and in all his years of service, there was not one time that it prevented emergency services from providing the necessary services to a site. He felt this was misleading information. Mr. Burich commented that there were a lot of issues brought up that need to be addressed and suggested that the request be laid over for two weeks to allow staff and the owner/petitioner to discuss these matters in greater detail. Motion by Vajgrt to lay over this item for a two week period. Seconded by Thoms. Mr. Thoms commented that certain things hit home with him in this discussion and he felt that further review should be completed regarding the flooding issues brought up and if creating this development would add or detract from the existing issues. He felt that further research should be done on how the proposed development would affect the rest of the area as well as additional research on the issues brought up relating to the navigable stream and traffic patterns in the area. He also wanted answers on why this particular development wanted to be in this specific location and to further review some of the other issues that were brought up today including how and where the city creates development. He stated he was not clear at this point on the impact to surrounding properties. Ms. Lohry commented that she understood that the country is a great place to raise children but that there was not any area on this development designated for children to play and she felt the entire development should be moved over to Lot 1 of the parcel. She also discussed the lack of landscaping brought up and the size of the trees to be planted on the site and her concerns with the questions relating to if the school system in this area could accommodate the additional students and the flooding issues. She felt all of these topics needed further review. Ms. Propp commented that not only were the town residents not made aware of the parcel being attached to the city and assigned an R-3 zoning designation, but the Plan Commission did not know about it either and when the request was processed it went directly to the Common Council. Motion carried 5-0. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 6:20 pm. (Vajgrt/Thoms) __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 12 October 20, 2015 Respectfully submitted, Darryn Burich Director of Planning Services