Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes__________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 1 August 2, 2016 PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES August 2, 2016 PRESENT: David Borsuk, Ed Bowen, Jeffrey Thoms, John Hinz, Steve Cummings, Donna Lohry, Robert Vajgrt, Karl Nollenberger EXCUSED: Thomas Fojtik, Kathleen Propp STAFF: Darryn Burich, Director of Planning Services; David Buck, Principal Planner; Elizabeth Williams, Associate Planner; Brian Slusarek, Zoning Code Enforcement Inspector; Steve Gohde, Assistant Director of Public Works; Deborah Foland, Recording Secretary In the absence of both the Chair and Vice Chairperson, Mr. Borsuk was appointed Chairperson pro temp. Chairperson Borsuk called the meeting to order at 4:00 pm. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. The minutes of July 19, 2016 were approved as presented. (Nollenberger/Vajgrt) I. PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION FOR CREATION OF TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 30 WASHINGTON BUILDING REDEVELOPMENT; DESIGNATION OF BOUNDARIES AND APPROVAL OF PROJECT PLAN TID No. 30 is being created to facilitate and support the historic rehabilitation of 105 Washington Avenue (aka. Fraternal Reserve Association Building) as an adaptive reuse project from office usage to residential apartments. Specifically, the 5 story 29,100 square foot structure is being rehabilitated to create 20 “higher end” residential apartment units that will rent from $700-$1100. The total project costs to facilitate this rehabilitation are approximately $3.9 million or approximately $195,000 per unit. TIF in this instance is being requested as a development incentive to facilitate construction of garages on a portion of the adjacent city parking lot (State Street Lot) as well as being used to offset reconstruction of the remaining parking lot area that will be used for public parking (those actions will require additional Plan Commission and Common Council action as project plan implementation items). Mr. Burich presented the item and discussed the history of the structure and explained the reason for the creation of the proposed tax increment financing district. He reviewed the subject site and the area to be included within the district boundaries and discussed the area of the parking lot to be used for the garages for the apartment building and the remaining area which would remain as public parking. He also discussed the downtown apartment products available and explained that no higher end units have been developed in this area. He explained the mixed use structures that provide apartment dwelling units over commercial uses on the first floor in the downtown area __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 2 August 2, 2016 and reviewed a map depicting the downtown apartment developments and their location. He discussed the quality of the housing units developed in recent years and the reconstruction of the parking lot which will be rebuilt as part of the TIF project. He also discussed project cost expenditures which would be an estimate of $530,000 for development incentives for the life of the TIF and $88,000 for the parking lot reconstruction. He also explained that the reason for the TIF assistance request was to increase the internal rate of return (IRR) which would be close to -14% without the TIF and -4% with the financial incentive. He further discussed the costs to the city to reconstruct the State Street parking lot without the creation of the TID which would be $700,000 and the success of a high end apartment development which is not feasible in this climate without garage facilities. He continued to discuss the benefits of these types of units in this area as it will bring in higher income households into the downtown vicinity which would assist in the revitalization of this area. He reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in this area, the TID boundaries and photos of the subject site. Mr. Thoms questioned if this area was considered to be blighted. Mr. Burich responded that there are two different standards for this determination and that this area was considered to be in need of conservation and rehabilitation. Mr. Thoms then questioned if the area within the TID was all zoned C-3 Central Commercial District. Mr. Burich responded affirmatively. Mr, Thoms also questioned what the City’s Comprehensive Plan designated for land use in this area. Mr. Burich responded that the area is designated as downtown or mixed downtown development which includes residential development and is compatible with the City’s Comprehensive Plan, Mr. Thoms inquired about the negative IRR that would result even after the TIF assistance and why the development incentive was not higher to at least increase the IRR to a positive figure. Mr. Burich replied that it did not appear to be feasible and discussed the values and historic tax credits and that even with financial assistance the developer was not going to be able to achieve a positive IRR figure with this project. Mr. Thoms inquired about what would occur if the Commission recommends approval for the creation of the TID and the developer decides to not move forward with this project. Mr. Burich responded that the city could look to capture value to reconstruct the parking lot for public use or just not move forward with the TIF at all. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 3 August 2, 2016 Mr. Thoms questioned if there was any thought to utilizing two-story parking garages with both public and private use as the garage concept was taking out more public parking and creating private parking for the apartment use. Mr. Burich indicated that the City did a study and analysis of the parking lot use last year and the average number of stalls utilized was 9.8 on a daily basis which showed the lot was underutilized and there is not the traffic generation in this area to support full use of this parking lot and the remaining public stalls would be adequate for public use. Mr. Thoms inquired if the parking lot was close enough to the riverwalk for it to be utilized for the purpose of access to the riverwalk area. Mr. Burich responded that there were several hundred parking stalls closer to the riverwalk that could be utilized for that purpose and the costs for a mixed use parking structure was too high to be feasible. The Parking Utility also reviewed the proposed change to the lot and was supportive of the change to private use for the portion necessary for the garage units. Mr. Hinz discussed the redevelopment area and if there were any plans in the works for 300/302 Waugoo Avenue as it was part of the TIF district and how this property would be affected by the creation of the district. Mr. Burich replied that this property was included in the district to balance out the TIF project and would provide a mechanism to potentially redevelop the site without amending the plan. Ms. Lohry stated that she felt this was a good idea but questioned if it would be conceivable to have some of the parking facilities underground as it would provide a way to create more green space. Mr. Burich discussed the renovations planned for the William Waters Plaza on the corner of the district which will provide for upgraded green space and that the parking lot reconstruction would require some landscaping features to meet current code requirements. Mr. Bowen inquired if the parking garages on the site have been approved or would the plans need to come back to the Commission at a later date for approval. Mr. Burich responded that it is not a planned development but the land disposition would be required to be reviewed by the Commission. Mr. Cummings left at 4:25 pm. Mike Goudreau, 4482 Harbor Village Drive, Omro, developer for the project, discussed the historic designation of the structure and that they purchased it with the intent to renovate it into apartment units. He discussed the extensive work done to the interior and the high quality of the interior features and that the design of the apartments maintains the integrity of the original structure. He further discussed the challenges presented to the project and that they had anticipated a higher __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 4 August 2, 2016 rate of return however it did not work out. He stated that the type of residents they anticipated to attract such as empty nesters or young professionals were considered while they completed studies on this development however these potential renters will not be interested in renting higher end apartment units without the garage amenity. Ms. Lohry again questioned if underground parking facilities would be possible. Mr. Goudreau responded that underground parking facilities were too cost prohibitive and discussed the current and future access points to the parking lot and the areas to be utilized for more green space. Dennis Ruedinger, 1434 Hazel Street, stated that he was a contractor working on this project and that it was very refreshing to work on such a development as it was not usual to continue to move forward with a project that is not producing positive revenue figures. He continued to discuss the historical feeling of the structure and the need for garages for this development to make it successful. Motion by Vajgrt to approve the creation of Tax Increment Financing District #30 Washington Building Redevelopment and designation of boundaries and project plan. Seconded by Thoms. Motion carried 7-0. II. EXTRATERRITORIAL TWO-LOT LAND DIVISION/CERTIFIED SURVEY MAP AT 940 OLD KNAPP ROAD IN THE TOWN OF NEKIMI The owner/petitioner is requesting a two-lot land division/certified survey map from one existing parcel containing a total of 39.35 acres. Sizes of the proposed lots are as follows: Lot 1 = 31.39 Acres Lot 2 = 6.01 Acres Dedicated right-of-way = 1.95 Acres Mr. Slusarek presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in this area. He discussed the purpose of the request and current use of the site and stated that the proposed land division would not alter the existing land use pattern in the area and is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan, He reviewed the certified survey map (CSM) and stated that the proposed lots possessed appropriate land area and street frontage. Mr. Thoms inquired if there were wetlands present on the site. Mr. Slusarek responded negatively. Mr. Thoms questioned where the dedication of right-of-way would be located. Mr. Slusarek displayed on the CSM where the right-of-way dedication was depicted along both street frontages. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 5 August 2, 2016 Motion by Vajgrt to approve an extraterritorial two-lot land division/certified survey map at 940 Old Knapp Road in the Town of Nekimi. Seconded by Bowen. Motion carried 7-0. III. SUBDIVISION REGULATION VARIANCE FOR A CSM/LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AT 538 NORTH MAIN STREET The applicant and owners request a variance to minimum lot width regulations of the Subdivision Ordinance allowing the creation of a lot with less than 60 feet of width. 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 discussed the current use of the site which was purchased by the Oshkosh Housing Authority in 2012 with the intent of utilizing the existing driveway and parking surface however they are not interested in retaining the existing structure. He explained that Peabody’s Ale House and Sideyard which is adjacent to this parcel was interested in acquiring and utilizing a majority of the existing structure in conjunction with their current use and the Housing Authority would retain the area of the lot for parking purposes. He further discussed that the C-3 zoning district does not require minimum lot widths and that narrow lots are common in the downtown area. He also reviewed the certified survey map (CSM) depicting the current and proposed lot lines for the subject parcels. Mr. Thoms questioned if there should be some type of restriction placed on the request to require the removal of a portion of the building. Mr. Buck responded that this would not be necessary as it cannot be located on both lots and was already depicted on the CSM as to be removed. Mr. Thoms then questioned if Lot 1 would require any base standard modification for the structure. Mr. Buck replied that it was not necessary as there are no setbacks requirements for a structure in the C-3 zoning district. Mr. Thoms also questioned if there should be any restriction for Lot 2 if it was decided to build on this lot. Mr. Buck reiterated that it would not be necessary as there were no setback requirements in this zoning district and appropriate in the downtown area. Motion by Nollenberger to approve a subdivision regulation variance for a certified survey map/lot line adjustment at 538 North Main Street. Seconded by Vajgrt. Motion carried 7-0 __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 6 August 2, 2016 IV. AMENDMENT OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FOR UNIVERSITY RE-USE OF FORMER LINCOLN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SITE AT 608 ALGOMA BOULEVARD The petitioner requests amendment of a previously approved Conditional Use/Planned Development for reconstruction of the parking lot and Wisconsin Street driveway to extend timeframe to implement improvements. Ms. Williams presented the item and explained the reason for the amendment to extend the timeframe for the previously approved improvements which were originally approved in 2010. She further explained that the proposal was amended in 2013 to relocate the playground area and to extend the timeframe for the parking lot reconstruction and reconfiguration of the Wisconsin Street driveway to have a right-in/right-out configuration by the end of 2015. She reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in this area and stated that the University was requesting an extension for the completion of the parking lot reconstruction and the right-in/right-out configuration for the driveway until 2017. She reviewed the letter submitted by the University providing the estimated schedule for the completion of the project which indicated that the project would be closed out by September of 2017. She discussed the existing condition of the parking lot and reviewed the site plan that was previously approved. Mr. Hinz commented that this was the second extension, if approved, and questioned what would prevent the University from asking for another extension for the completion of this development. Mr. Burich stated that is a possibility. Mr. Thoms commented that the reconstruction of the parking lot is understandable however he felt that the right-in/right-out configuration for the driveway could be accomplished now. Mr. Burich responded that reconfiguration really needs to be done with the overall parking lot reconstruction and that signage only is not as effective. Bernard Pitz, 617 W. Irving Avenue, stated that the University indicated that it had submitted plans to the state and that he had issues with the previous placement of the dumpster enclosure as it was in an undesirable location. He felt the site plan should reflect the location of the area for the dumpster enclosure and he also had concerns with the area on the site plan that was designated as “to be determined” as he felt the site plan should be more definitive, Ms. Williams explained that the site plan was previously approved by the Plan Commission and Common Council and that the parking lot reconstruction will have to meet code requirements regarding the placement of the dumpster enclosure and if any alterations were being requested, it would have to come back to the Plan Commission and Common Council for approval. Mr. Pitz reiterated that he needed to know where the enclosure would be located and that this should be depicted on the plans prior to receiving any approval for the extension of the timeframe. He continued to discuss the approval of the CUP/PD in 2010 that required the Wisconsin Street __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 7 August 2, 2016 driveway to be right-in/right-out which was not being abided by at this point. He felt that the CUP/PD should be revoked if the University was not going to abide by the conditions of approval and they should be required to come forward with full plans to receive approval for the requested extension. Mr. Bowen commented that the Commission and Common Council approved the reconstruction plans for the site at the time the CUP/PD approval was granted in 2010. Mr. Buck stated that when the CUP/PD was approved it included a condition that the parking lot be reconstructed to meet code requirements which would regulate the placement of the dumpster enclosure by the zoning ordinance. Mr. Bowen stated that the site plan was reviewed in the past when the development was approved and it was required to meet code requirements which would address the issue. Mr. Burich added that part of meeting code requirements would relate to the placement of landscape islands, buffering, and storm water management as well as no base standard modifications being granted to allow any alterations to the ordinance without coming back to the Commission for approval of an amendment. Mr. Bowen stated that the layout for the parking lot was in the final plans presented as it currently exists and no alternation of the plans was being requested just an extension of the timeframe for completion. JoAnn Rife, Director of Planning and Construction for the University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh, 650 Witzel Avenue, stated that the overall request submitted provides a time line for the project completion and explained the process to submit the request to the state to design and plan the reconstruction and meet the requirements of the City’s code standards, She discussed the placement of the dumpster enclosure and the several considerations being evaluated at this time and the rear and side yard setbacks involved and the possibility of the University requesting a variance for the sideyard setback in the future if deemed necessary. She further stated that the architectural team was assigned last Monday and discussed the construction process involved at the state level and that the project was scheduled to be completed at the end of 2017. Mr. Thoms commented that the CUP/PD was approved in 2010 and amended in 2013 with a completion date of the end of 2015 and commented that the letter appeared to first be submitted to the state in 2016. Ms. Rife discussed the acquisition of the property from the school district and the amount of funding approved for the project in the budget which covered the interior improvements to the building only. As part of the approval process with the state, the University needed to complete the building interior and playground area first before being able to proceed with the submission of the parking lot reconstruction to move forward in a consecutive fashion. Mr, Hinz questioned the status of the area on the site plan that is labeled “to be determined”. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 8 August 2, 2016 Ms. Rife responded that the area was gravel at one point but has been restored to green space currently and is planned for the parking lot to expand to the back of the lot when reconstructed in the future. Lori Worm, Interim Vice Chancellor of Administrative Services for the University of Wisconsin- Oshkosh, 800 Algoma Boulevard, stated that she has worked with the parking department for the state and discussed their process which involves projects being built into five and ten year planning needs and it is currently in financial planning for its completion. Mr. Hinz inquired if it would be feasible to add a condition to this request that future extensions would not be allowed for this project. Ms. Lohry commented that this situation has been poorly handled although she understood that the University was at the will of state government, She further discussed Mr, Pitz’s commentary and that she passes this location frequently and the Wisconsin Street side of this intersection looks bad and has for quite some time. She would not support an extension for this development. Mr. Thoms discussed the possibility of the requested extension being granted and the project not being completed in 2017. He questioned what would happen if another extension is not allowed and what recourse the City would have. Mr. Burich responded that the City could fine the University for the violation and a lawsuit against them was another avenue however neither one of these options are good ones to get the project accomplished. The conditional use permit could also be revoked. Mr. Thoms stated that he was reluctant to vote in favor of this request but would support it this time however he will not support another extension in the future. Mr. Burich suggested that the conditions could be altered to remove the use of the lot for parking if compliance with the reconstruction is not met. Mr. Borsuk requested that an item be placed on a future agenda to discuss how to address conditions such as this one and what recourse the City has when conditions relating to time lines are not met. He felt a message to the Board of Regents regarding this matter was necessary and he understood that budget restraints were an issue but the University has a responsibility to the City in this case and should complete the necessary reconstruction or lose the ability to use the site for parking purposes. He felt the Commission needed further direction on how to handle conditions for development approvals to ensure compliance in a timely fashion. Mr. Nollenberger suggested that a condition be added that the parking lot can no longer be utilized if the reconstruction and reconfiguration is not complete by 2017. Mr. Burich responded that he would like to consult with the City Attorney on this matter before adding such a condition. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 9 August 2, 2016 Mr. Borsuk discussed if the request should be laid over or allowed to move forward to the Common Council. Mr. Thoms stated that he would support a layover for the item. Motion by Vajgrt to lay over an amendment of a conditional use permit/planned development for the University re-use of former Lincoln Elementary School site at 608 Algoma Boulevard for two weeks. Seconded by Lohry. Mr. Hinz commented that although this may not be in the purview of the Plan Commission, the University has been setting a standard of putting things off. Motion carried 7-0. V. DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW FOR THE CREATION OF A MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE 3500 BLOCK OF LOGAN DRIVE The applicant is requesting approval of a development plan to construct a 30 unit, multiple-family residential Planned Development in the 3500 block of Logan Drive. Ms. Williams presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in this area. She discussed the apartment development and associated amenities which were proposed to be developed in three phases. She reviewed each phase of the project as well as the site plan and discussed access to the development and the proposed parking lot improvements. She stated that the proposed number of parking stalls exceeded code requirements and the base standard modification to allow stacked parking in front of the attached garages and that the final parking lot layout will be required to meet code requirements. She also discussed the pedestrian walks and the curbing that is included in the conditions for this request to ensure safety as well as the proposed signage for the development which will be required to meet code requirements. She also reviewed the landscape plan and discussed the condition to provide a landscape buffer along the north property line to mitigate potential conflicts with the commercial use to the north. She reviewed the location of the two detention basins and stated that storm water management plans will be required to meet code requirements with the approval of the Department of Public Works. She also reviewed the building elevations and discussed the architectural features of the apartment buildings which were adequate however a condition was recommended for further articulation to be added to the office/storage building. She also reviewed the conditions recommended for this request. Ms. Lohry questioned who would be responsible for fire protection at this location. Mr, Burich responded that the development was within the City’s jurisdiction for police and fire protection. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 10 August 2, 2016 Ms. Lohry then questioned if there were any other apartment developments in this area. Mr. Burich responded affirmatively. Ms. Lohry also questioned if the school district was able to accommodate the students from this development. Mr. Burich again responded affirmatively. Ms. Lohry questioned if the apartment units would be market value or subsidized housing. Ms. Williams replied that she was not aware of what type of housing was proposed. Ms. Lohry inquired if the development would include a recreational area for children. Ms. Williams replied that the north end of the development area contains a playground area. Mr. Thoms stated that the recreational area may be shown on the plans but may not be constructed and questioned if a condition should be added to require this feature. Mr. Burich commented that it appeared that the plans submitted for the site plan and landscaping plan do not coincide. Mr. Bowen stated that the developer is planning to construct three 10-unit buildings in phases which is allowed in a planned development, however he questioned if they build in phases, what is there to regulate disturbed areas of the site. He had concerns with disturbed areas allowed to remain for a length of time and questioned if the disturbed areas created from construction would need to be refurbished in between phases. Mr. Burich responded that if areas of the site are not under development, the areas must be returned to green space until construction begins and this could be added as a condition to this request. Mr. Bowen stated that he wanted to clarify that portions of the site would not be allowed to be used as construction areas or staging areas for long term. He wanted to mitigate any potential for down times that the site is left in the staging process for a number of years. Mr. Buck commented that code requirements regulate that if no active building permit is open, those areas that have been disturbed would have to be returned to vegetative ground cover until the permits are issued for continued construction. Mr. Borsuk discussed that storm water management plans and construction plans that would need to be submitted for approval and appropriately permitted would need to have these details included and should address these issues along with other code requirements. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 11 August 2, 2016 Mr. Burich added that he felt that ordinance provisions should accommodate these concerns. Mr. Borsuk stated that if there were any concerns relating to the staging process and areas left disturbed without continuing construction, the item could be brought back to the Commission for further consideration. He felt that staff should report back as to whether the City had adequate protections for these concerns. Mr. Bowen left at 5:35 pm. Tim Kent, Architects in Common, N9224 Mengel Hill Road, Fond du Lac, stated that the site plan being displayed was outdated and a revised plan had been submitted later. He discussed the location of the detention basins and playground area and displayed on the site plan where it would be located. Mr. Thoms questioned during which phase the playground area would be constructed. Mr. Kent responded that at this point he was not sure and questioned if it would be acceptable to construct the playground as part of phase three or possibly phase two. He further discussed which items would be constructed during each phase and noted that the dumpster enclosures would be constructed in phase one and three. Ms. Lohry stated that she felt the playground area should be constructed as part of phase one as the apartment building will be occupied and there are no other areas for children to play in this area as it is north of town. Mr. Thoms inquired about the time line for each phase of development. Mr. Kent replied that phase one would be constructed in September, phase two in the summer of 2017, and phase three in 2018. Alex Koopman, 1408 Oshkosh Avenue, stated that the units were comparable to the Soda Creek apartments recently constructed and would be market rate units at about $800 monthly. The playground area was planned to be constructed later because the parking lot area will be under construction. Mr. Kent added that there would not be pavement in the playground area until further along in the phasing process and therefore it would be more practical to construct this area during the final phase. Ms. Lohry suggested that the developer could construct a path to the playground area during the first phase and remove access to the area when the drive accesses are under construction. Mr. Kent discussed easement issues relating to the placement of private utilities with the adjacent properties which has affected how the site could be developed and stated that the condition __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 12 August 2, 2016 relating to curbing adjacent to all pedestrian walks has been addressed by the use of raised pavement for the sidewalk areas. Ms. Williams commented that the raised sidewalks were not included on the submitted site plan. Mr. Thoms stated that if raised sidewalks were to be installed instead of curbing for the pedestrian walks that the condition relating to that item be altered to reflect that change. Mr. Kent inquired about the condition relating to the landscape buffer along the north property line and what types of plantings this would entail. Ms. Williams responded that the purpose of the landscape buffer would be to screen the residential development from the commercial use to the north. Mr. Thoms questioned if there was adequate room from the landscaping buffer to the detention basin area and if the natural plantings would be sufficient or if additional plantings would still be necessary or if they would impede the detention basin from functioning appropriately. Mr. Buck replied that the purpose of the buffer was to block visibility and noise and that the developer can come back with what they propose to install for landscaping features as the landscape plan would be required to be approved during the site plan review process or it could be brought back to the Commission if necessary. Fencing could also be installed if a landscape buffer was not possible in this area. Heather Pinnow, 911 Starboard Court, owner of Cliff’s Tire. the commercial property to the north. stated that the development would be adjacent to the back side of their business and they had no issues with the plantings for the landscape buffer being placed closer to the lot line to avoid conflicts with it being too close to the detention basin area. Mr. Buck stated that an easement could be obtained from the property owner to place some of the landscaping on their property if necessary. Steve Gohde, Assistant Director of Public Works, explained how detention basins function and that access to the basin would be in this area and that 10 to 12 feet of access is necessary for vehicles and that the grading of the land is also involved with how it is constructed and that these issues would have to be reviewed to determine placement of the landscaping buffer in this area. Mr. Thoms commented that it sounded like this issue cannot be resolved at this time. Mr. Kent voiced his concern with the condition relating to the detention basin being designed without riprap above the water line as he had concerns with the possibility of the basin being washed out during heavy rainfall. Mr. Thoms stated that riprap could be used below the water line as this would be a wet basin according to the condition. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 13 August 2, 2016 Discussion continued on the construction of detention basins and how they function and the use of riprap or native plantings on the safety shelf and the potential of the basin being washed out if not properly constructed with the appropriate steps taken. It was determined that the condition should be left as written and details for the basin construction could be worked out as formal storm water management plans would be required to be submitted and approved by the Department of Public Works. Mr. Vajgrt questioned if a condition should be added to this request requiring that the playground be constructed and in which phase of development. Ms. Lohry stated that she felt it was important for children to have a designated place to play and she felt it should be constructed during the first phase of the development. Mr, Hinz commented that he understood the developer’s concerns with having construction work taking place next to the playground area as that does create some safety concerns. Mr. Vajgrt agreed that this could be an issue with construction work continuing in this area and he felt it would be best to install the playground when all construction is completed. Mr. Thoms discussed the different phases of construction for this development and felt that the playground area could be installed during the first phase and could be fenced off during construction phases if deemed necessary for safety purposes. He also felt that this would not prevent children from playing on the construction equipment left on site but he felt that installing the playground as part of phase one would make more sense as the units of the first building would already be occupied and it would help attract families to the development. Motion by Vajgrt to approve a planned development for the creation of a multiple-family residential development located on the north side of the 3500 block of Logan Drive with the following conditions: 1) Base standard modification to permit stacked parking in front of the attached garage. 2) Grade separation for all internal pedestrian walks to meet code requirements. 3) Landscape buffer be installed along the north property line to mitigate potential conflicts with the commercial development to the north. 4) Formal erosion control, drainage and storm water management plans be approved by the Department of Public Works. 5) Detention basin is designed without riprap above the water line and native plants be planted on the side slopes of the basin and emergent plants on the safety shelf. 6) In-wall air conditioning units if used the sleeves should be colored to match or compliment the building’s exterior façade color. 7) Wood porches/balconies be painted/stained or wrapped in vinyl. 8) All vents and other appurtenances on the apartment buildings be colored to match or compliment the building’s exterior façade color. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 14 August 2, 2016 9) The side/end elevations facing Logan Drive be further articulated by adding additional windows, gable roof ends and/or a stone veneer knee wall. 10) Development of playground area in conjunction with occupancy for phase one Seconded by Nollenberger. Motion carried 6-0. Motion by Nollenberger that the Plan Commission thank David Buck for his years of outstanding and dedicated service. Seconded by Borsuk. Motion carried 6-0. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 6:00 pm. (Vajgrt/Hinz) Respectfully submitted, Darryn Burich Director of Planning Services