Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes__________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 1 February 7, 2017 PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES February 7, 2017 PRESENT: David Borsuk, Jeffrey Thoms, Thomas Fojtik, John Hinz, Steve Cummings, Kathleen Propp, John Kiefer, Robert Vajgrt, Karl Nollenberger EXCUSED: Ed Bowen STAFF: Darryn Burich, Director of Planning Services; Elizabeth Williams, Planner; Brian Slusarek, Assistant Planner; Steve Gohde, Assistant Director of Public Works; Allen Davis, Director of Community 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 January 17, 2017 were approved as presented. (Vajgrt/Hinz) I. THREE-LOT LAND DIVISION/CERTIFIED SURVEY MAP AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR THE CREATION OF A MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 173 WEST RIPPLE AVENUE The applicant is requesting two actions within this petition: A. Three-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 development 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 stated that the development was consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and discussed the proposed land division. She reviewed the proposed lots which would be three developable lots and the fourth lot which would be dedicated for parkland. She reviewed the proposed certified survey map which meets the requirements for city standards and discussed the issue with utility services to Lot 2 which would be addressed by combining Lots 1 and 2. The lot dedicated for parkland will need to be designed as a separate lot and discussed the easements to be established with the finalized certified survey map requiring approval by the Department of Community Development and the Department of Public Works. She reviewed the site plan for the development and the apartment complexes and discussed the density of the development which meets code requirements. She also discussed the detention pond, refuse enclosures, maintenance garage, and office that would all be part of this development and the base standard modifications requested for placement of the refuse enclosure. She further discussed details of the apartment units and that they would be market rate and reviewed the vehicular access to the site which was coordinated with the Winnebago County Highway Committee for the access on to Oregon Street. She discussed the base standard modifications requested and the pedestrian accesses for the development as well as the storm water management __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 2 February 7, 2017 plans which include a detention pond in the center of the property and the features to be incorporated into the pond. She also discussed the location of the site within the Airport Zoning Traffic Pattern District which has been discussed with representatives of the Winnebago County Airport. She discussed the landscape plans and reviewed the site plan depicting its features as well as the lighting plans which include shielded lights and will be approved during the site plan review process. She discussed signage for the development and reviewed a rendering of the proposed sign as well as the building elevations and materials to be utilized on the exterior of the structures. She also reviewed the conditions recommended for the land division and for the planned development. Mr. Thoms asked to clarify that the revised certified survey map would be comprised of three lots by the combination of Lots 1 and 2 and the third lot being the dedicated parkland. Ms. Williams confirmed that this was correct and that the line between Lot 1 and 2 will be eliminated and the parkland area would become Lot 2 and Lot 3 will remain the same. Mr. Thoms questioned if the Oshkosh Police and Fire Departments reviewed this proposal. Ms. Williams responded affirmatively and stated that the Police Department requested that a Knox box be installed on the gate and that they would also require specifications on the gate which is addressed in the conditions of approval. Mr. Thoms questioned if there were no issues from a traffic standpoint and if the landscape plan met the number of points required for the new zoning ordinance. Ms. Williams responded that the petitioner will need to add plantings around the foundation to meet the requirements of the new zoning ordinance however the application was received prior to the adoption of this ordinance and finalized landscape plans will be reviewed during the site plan review process and will be required to meet code standards. Mr. Borsuk questioned if the development met the spirit of city planning; where the location was of the navigable stream was; if there was adequate right-of-way on Oregon Street to provide for a four lane road; airport concerns and noise issues in that area that have come up in the past and if the berm is satisfactory to address noise concerns; is the detention pond going to be satisfactory and will the release be appropriate to address standing water issues. Ms. Williams discussed the location of the navigable stream and reviewed on the map its location. She stated that the concern regarding having adequate right-of-way on Oregon Street was addressed with the additional right-of-way being dedicated by the petitioner. The issue was worked on with coordination by the County who made the recommendation for the addition of a passing lane and the B1 intersection to accommodate these concerns. The Airport Director was involved with discussions related to this development and any concerns will be addressed with coordination with the developer and airport representatives. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 3 February 7, 2017 Steve Gohde, Assistant Director of Public Works, discussed the use of a pond that would be dry within a matter of hours which is not feasible as the pond cannot be designed and constructed to function in this fashion. For this to be a dry detention pond, a biofilter system would have to be installed which would not meet water quality standards. Mr. Burich discussed the city’s policy to promote both center city and outer skirts development to meet market and population growth needs. Mr. Borsuk questioned if we were protecting the Industrial Parks in the vicinity. Mr. Burich indicated that this was being addressed with decibel protections and the noise ordinance will also address these concerns to protect both the residential and industrial needs in this area. Mr. Thoms commented that the developer only has to control the water runoff on this site for the development and there were concerns related to flooding from the navigable stream in this area and questioned how the city was going to deal with this issue. Mr. Gohde discussed studies that are being completed for this area and that regional detention basins may be constructed in the future once the studies are complete. He further discussed the various studies currently underway in several locations and if they were not complete now in this area that they will be in the next year or two. Ms. Propp commented that the navigable stream appears to be an open ditch that extends under Ripple Avenue. Mr. Gohde responded that was correct and that it is directed to piping after that and the storm water ordinance for this development mandates that the runoff from this site will have to be released at an equal or lesser rate than before the development was constructed. He further discussed the runoff from this site and how much will have to be retained on site and that the storm water runoff will be reduced off site substantially. Kimberly Green, 190 W. Ripple Avenue, stated that she lives across the street from Lot 1 and that she was an expert on the navigable stream which her family uses as an ice skating rink in winter and that it floods her backyard in spring. She discussed the last meeting when this development was reviewed and felt that the town residents’ concerns were not being heard. She discussed the single-family homes in this area that are located on one acre lots and that this development does not fit into their neighborhood. She stated that staff indicated that this was a low density development however it was high density to the residents of the town and it was not desired by the neighborhood. She also stated that the house on Ripple Avenue that was referenced as vacant is not a vacant structure and discussed that she also had concerns with the berm to be constructed. She discussed the mature trees in the area and that her family moved from Jackson Street to this location due to the rental units in the Jackson Street area. She did not want to see the loss of the mature trees as she felt they should be preserved for noise reduction. She also discussed the notifications received for adjacent property owners last time and that the residential property __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 4 February 7, 2017 owners did not receive notices this time but the town clerks were only notified. She did not feel that this was fair and that the city should talk to the residents in the neighborhood about new development. She discussed the children that go to Lakeside School and that with this many units there will be more children in the area and if this will involve the movement of some of the existing students to other schools as this would be very stressful to their children. Mr. Thoms inquired where the mature trees she discussed were located. Ms. Green displayed on the map where the existing trees were located. Wanda Danhauer, 4078 Oregon Street, stated that the consideration for berming off of Ripple Avenue to protect those residential uses was addressed but what about the residential uses on Oregon Street. She stated that this issue was not discussed with them. She further stated that her sump pump runs 24 hours a day, seven days a week and that there were springs located on Lot 3. She had concerns what will happen when those springs are hit and that the issues related to this are not solved. She also discussed the traffic issues on Oregon Street due to the operations of Oshkosh Corporation, who would be paying for the sewer improvements necessary for this development and if it would have the capacity to handle this development. Keith Berholtz, 4078 Oregon Street, stated that he would like to see the area kept as residential and that condominiums would be more acceptable. He further stated that he owns a farm in this area and was told that this was an industrial area and that residential developments could not be built there. He discussed the development of the park which he felt wasn’t feasible as the city has a hard time paying for everything and questioned who is going to pay for park improvements. He felt that the taxpayers will have to pay for the development of the park and questioned who would be using it other than the residents living in the apartments. He felt that there was enough vacant land in the city for apartments to be built elsewhere. Bob Schrickel, 177 W. Ripple Avenue, stated that he had concerns with the detention basin as there are water issues in this area in between his field and the development site. He further stated that the water floods part of his property, three to four acres every spring, and he did not see how it would be possible to retain detention water without overflowing the stream. He also discussed the rezoning of the property a few years ago and that he did not feel that proper policies were followed as they were not notified of the action. Dennis Hughes, 4046 Oregon Street, stated that he felt that the town residents should have been notified however he felt that most of the plans he reviewed looked good. He further stated that there was nothing on Lot 3 designating where apartment would be developed and that he would like to see the development plans for this lot as it is closer to his property. He commented that condition #4 related to a cross access agreement between Lot 1 and Lot 3 and questioned if that meant that there would be another traffic lane on Oregon Street. He continued discussion on the traffic on Oregon Street and that it is going too fast and that he would like to see the speed limit lowered in this area. He also inquired as to when Lot 3 would be developed. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 5 February 7, 2017 Evelyn Green, 173 W. Ripple Avenue, discussed that she attends Lakeside School and if children would be transferred to other schools to accommodate the children from the apartments. She discussed her concerns with the difficulty in adjusting to a new school and new students and that the children from the apartment complex would be going to Lakeside School and the current students will be moved to another school. Lakeside School currently services children in grades kindergarten through fifth grade. Tom Franks, 88 W. Ripple Avenue, stated that he has been reviewing the preservation land use and discussed the wildlife in the area that he felt needed to be preserved. Sara Schrickel, 177 W. Ripple Avenue, commented that there was discussion relating to pedestrian walkways within the development however Oregon Street and Ripple Avenue are not pedestrian friendly. She discussed that neighbors walk down the street but it is a narrow road and she felt that additional pedestrian and vehicular traffic is a concern. She also discussed the sign which she felt was too tall and that the development does not need a sign of that size. She did not want a park located there if there is not going to be any equipment to play on as she does not want children on her property. She was also concerned with the loss of wildlife and discussed if they want to stay in this area if it is going to continue to develop. She felt that if everything does not work out they will have to deal with the issues. Larry Last, 3827 Red Oak Court, questioned how many acres was the site for the apartment development. Ms. Williams responded that it was 14.77 acres. Mr. Last discussed that in 2007, there was a proposal to develop softball diamonds in this area but it did not move forward as it was denied due to concerns about its proximity to the airport and questioned if the city did not care about children’s safety. If the ball diamonds were a concern he felt that the placement of an apartment complex in this vicinity should also be an issue and that the County could be held liable for any accidents. He further discussed that this was a federally funded airport and that multi-family dwellings were not allowed in this area years ago as it was a safety issue within the air zone. He further discussed the land uses allowed in this zone. Sheree Zellner, 3669 Oregon Street, questioned if the proposed tenants that will be renting these apartments will be made aware of the noise from the Generac plant as they are doing testing at all hours of the day and night and also discussed the Oshkosh Corporation trucks that use Oregon Street and the noise generated from this. She commented that she has lived there for 40 years and had concerns with residents of the apartments as there are lots of factories in this area and the road goes from four lanes to two lanes. She felt there were safety factors and a traffic study should be completed. She also discussed that this road has been designated as Alternate Highway 41 now and she did not know when that happened but did not find it desirable. Adam Green, 190 W. Ripple Avenue, stated that he had concerns with the look of the apartments and that the inclusion of window air conditioners was not upper class as he felt there should be central air conditioning. He further discussed that he did not like the look of the structures and __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 6 February 7, 2017 questioned who will be maintaining them and his concerns with garbage and vehicles from the site. Steve Berholtz, 3718 Oregon Street, questioned if anyone from this committee has gone to the site and discussed the navigable stream and its importance as the water backs up in this location. He further discussed the berm constructed to alleviate the stream and the Basler facility on 35th Avenue where the water is an issue as well. He continued to discuss his concerns with the water flow in this area as he felt too much asphalt and concrete have been placed in this vicinity. Beau Doemel, 3820 Oregon Street, also discussed the flooding issues in this area and how this development will increase these issues. Neil Andrasko, 3836 Red Oak Court, discussed the water issues in the area as well and that it collects in the road and he does not see this working out well for the residents in this area. He also discussed the city standards for sidewalks as he felt there should be sidewalks in the vicinity and that the standards should be the same for all developments. Skylar Bryce, 3818 Red Oak Court, discussed the 96 units in the apartment complex and the number of people and vehicles generated from this for the area. He further discussed traffic and water runoff concerns and the proposed turn lane on Oregon Street and if the road will be widened to allow for this. Ms. Williams stated that the additional right-of way to be dedicated should address the concern for adequate area for the turn lane on Oregon Street. Mr. Bryce commented that this property is not adequate to fit a 96-unit apartment building and questioned if there would be sidewalks installed down Ripple Avenue. Ms. Williams responded that the sidewalks proposed for the development are internal only. Mr. Bryce stated that the city gets what they want and should take residents concerns into consideration. Stan Mack, Superintendent of the Oshkosh Area School District, discussed the school capacity in this area and distributed copies of an analysis prepared for this development. It included distances to the four area schools that would be able to serve the children from these apartments and the number of available capacity at each facility. He stated that there was a 40 student capacity left at Lakeside School and explained that there are 2 plus students anticipated per household in single family dwellings. He also discussed the transfer of students to other schools and stated that children that are currently attending school at a specific location are not moved to another facility to accommodate additional students. Smith School is the closet facility to this development and he also discussed Jefferson and Jacob Shapiro Schools that are also within this district. These four schools have availability for 240 additional students in this area and can easily handle the additional capacity generated by this development as they do not anticipate larger amounts of children than the availability. The school district is sensitive to moving children to __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 7 February 7, 2017 different schools and the school district will not stand in the way of development. He continued discussion on growth in the school district and the community and that it is advantageous to the school district. Thomas Wood, Harris & Associates, petitioner for this request, stated that they have reviewed the staff recommendations and have no issues with the conditions placed on this request. He discussed the combination of the lots which they had no issue with and the parkland dedication which is required by the city and that the lot dedicated to parkland would meet those requirements. He further explained that the site plan is for Lot 1 and 2 only and Lot 3 would not be developed at this time and its development would be way in the future. The currently proposed 96 units can be addressed by the sewer capacity and the wooded area that exists on Lot 3 would remain as is for at least the next five years. He discussed the widening of the right-of-way and that they were not doing anything with Ripple Avenue. He also discussed issues with the sewer system and traffic for the access on Oregon Street and that the emergency use only for the access on Ripple Avenue which would result in no major traffic generation on this street. He further discussed the gated access on Ripple Avenue as well as the access for the development to Oregon Street. He attended a meeting with Winnebago County last week and discussed the configuration of the lanes which will slow down traffic near this intersection. He stated that the sewer expenses will be paid for by the developer and that all internal sewer facilities internally on the site will be privately maintained resulting in no cost to residents. He also discussed the storm water management for the site which will be contained by the detention pond as well as the landscape berms and swales which will not negatively affect adjacent lands. He explained that the development would not be adding any storm water runoff to the navigable stream and that conditions will be better than the existing conditions in this area and that their storm water management plans will require approval by the Department of Public Works. He explained that the zoning classification on the site was designated when the property was attached to the city and the property was not rezoned as previously stated. He discussed the internal sidewalks that will be installed for the development and the flooding issues in this area and the study that the city is currently working on and should be completed in the next few years. The mature trees along Ripple Avenue that were previously stated as being removed will remain intact as no improvements were proposed along Ripple Avenue and the berm for the development would be inset. The existing trees are inside the right-of-way line and will serve as a buffer for the development. Mr. Thoms questioned what types of plantings were proposed along the top of the berm along Oregon Street and Ripple Avenue. Mr. Wood responded that it would be a mix of evergreens and deciduous trees which would be approximately four feet tall at the time of installation and would be located 25 feet behind the existing trees. Mr. Hinz inquired if the sign would be located 25 to 30 feet off the intersection. Mr. Wood replied that the developer will be working with staff on the proper placement of the sign and that it would be imbedded into the berm along the site. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 8 February 7, 2017 Mr. Thoms stated that the sewer capacity will be adequate to serve the proposed development but the petitioner would not be developing anything on Lot 3 until such a time when the sewer capacity is increased for this area. Mr. Wood confirmed this and stated that any development on Lot 3 will not occur for at least five years. Sarah Hillenbrand, representing Premier Real Estate Management, stated that their company develops and manages multi-family developments and discussed some of the other apartments that they currently manage. She stated that they have an on-site caretaker for each development and that their maintenance services have very high standards. She further stated that they have constructed over 3,000 units across the state in the past three years and manage 11,000 units and will deliver a top of the line product which they want to be a success. She continued discussion on the B1 intersection, lighting, density of the development, landscaping plans, and the exterior improvements done by the direction of the city. She discussed the noise concerns brought up by property owners in the area and stated that potential tenants will have the opportunity to tour the location and property and make their own decision about if this is an area that they choose to live in. She provided further details of their development and construction company and discussed the Soda Creek apartments in Oshkosh recently which have been very successful. Mr. Thoms inquired who would be the target market for these rental units. Ms. Hillenbrand indicated that they do not have a specific target market for these units and discussed the various types of people such as empty nesters, young professionals, and other potential tenants that would rent these units as apartments of this type offer a more flexible housing option. Mr. Thoms then inquired why the developer chose this site on the outskirts of the city rather than a site closer to the central city. Ms. Hillenbrand explained that they have staff that handle site selection and explained some of the criteria that is considered when looking at potential development locations. Units that are not centrally located and offer a more remote setting are desirable for some tenants and cost factors are also considered as greenfield sites are less costly to develop as they do not have the expense of demolishing existing structures to make the property buildable. She further discussed the landscaping buffers, trees and berms that would address potential noise concerns. Mr. Wood commented that the dedication of land for park purposes is by City ordinance and no improvements would be done by the developer to this area and would be done by the City’s Parks Department. Mr. Borsuk stated that his concerns relating to this development have been addressed and he felt it would be reducing the impacts for storm water management in this area. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 9 February 7, 2017 Motion by Borsuk to approve a three-lot land division/certified survey map and planned development for the creation of a multiple-family residential development on property located at 173 W. Ripple Avenue with the following conditions for the land division: 1) Final lot configuration to be approved by the Department of Community Development. 2) Proposed utility easements along Ripple Avenue be extended through the proposed park land and a storm water easement be established for the navigable stream located at the northwestern portion of proposed Lot 1. Final utility easement locations and dimensions will be approved by the Department of Public Works. and the following conditions for the planned development: 1) Base standard modification to permit: a. Curbs to be installed only at drive entrances and around parking stalls. b. Monument sign for development to have no greater than 28 square feet of sign area and no taller than eight feet in height. c. Refuse enclosures in the front yard setback as proposed. 2) Final gate material and height specifications be reviewed and approved by the Department of Community Development. 3) Oregon Street entrance be improved to meet B1 intersection standards with a far-side bypass lane. 4) Cross access agreement between Lot 1 and Lot 3 for the proposed shared access drive along Oregon Street. 5) Gaps in the pedestrian walk system and proposed sidewalk widths be corrected at the time of building permit review, as approved by the Department of Community Development. 6) Plant materials to meet code requirements and be designed to screen/buffer street frontages of the development area where existing homes are located, as approved by the Department of Community Development. 7) Final lighting plans and specifications be reviewed and approved during the site plan review process by the Department of Community Development. 8) Grading, erosion control and stormwater plan be approved by the Department of Public Works and the detention basin be designed without riprap above the water line, include emergent plants on the safety shelf, and native plants on the side slope. 9) Wildlife mitigation plan be approved by Winnebago County Airport Director. 10) Air conditioning units and wood porches/balconies on the structures facades are painted/stained or colored to match or compliment the building’s exterior façade color. Seconded by Vajgrt. Ms. Propp commented that there were concerns brought up regarding the airport and staff indicated that they will work with the Airport Director regarding this development. Mr. Burich responded affirmatively. Mr. Thoms questioned if this was meeting the FAA standards. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 10 February 7, 2017 Mr. Burich indicated that the development would meet the Airport Overlay District standards and the detention basin wildlife mitigation plans would be approved by the Airport Director and the development was compliant with Winnebago County Airport Overlay zoning standards. Mr. Thoms then questioned if there were any concerns with a higher density development in this area. Mr. Burich responded that this development was not considered high density and explained the calculations of how this determination is made and that this development was 50% less than the density permitted in this zoning district and was not much greater than the density for single family dwellings. Mr. Cummings discussed the student’s concerns with being relocated to other schools and that the children currently in attendance at area schools will not be moved to other facilities due to this development. He also discussed the Country Club area south of this location and the flooding issues in this area and questioned if these were two separate streams impacting the properties. Mr. Gohde responded that they were two separate creeks and discussed the drainage of each creek and the directional flow for both of these streams. Motion carried 9-0. II. AMENDMENT TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FOR LINCOLN HALL PARKING LOT AT 608 ALGOMA BOULEVARD The petitioner requests approval of a Planned Development amendment to allow reconstruction/expansion of the existing parking lot. 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 current use of the site and the original planned development approved and the various amendments to it since that time. He reviewed the site plan for the reconstruction of the parking lot and reviewed the accesses to the site and discussed the uses for the parking lot. He reviewed the base standard modifications for reduced setbacks on the north, east, and southeast yards which are not a concern as there is a zero foot setback for much of this area now. He reviewed the landscape plan and discussed the refuse enclosure materials and location as well as the access control variance for the reduced lateral clearance of the Wisconsin Street right-out exit. Lighting plans will be reviewed and approval during the site plan review process and the Department of Public Works will review storm water management plans which will be required to meet performance standards. He also reviewed the conditions recommended for this request. Mr. Thoms commented that the plans now depict a right-out exit on Wisconsin Street and he recalled that it was previously discussed to be constructed as a right-in/right-out access. He asked to confirm that it is currently proposed to be a right-out exit only. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 11 February 7, 2017 Mr. Burich responded that this was correct. Mr. Thoms then questioned what will prevent people from entering the site from the Wisconsin Street exit only access. Mr. Burich replied that the access is angled in a fashion to discourage or prevent people from entering the site from this location. Mr. Thoms then questioned if the main entrance is now on Union Avenue. Mr. Burich responded affirmatively and that was currently the only access. Mr. Thoms discussed the use of the access from Union Avenue and Algoma Boulevard and if this would provide adequate area for maneuvering in and out of the site. Mr. Burich indicated that the access should be adequate for the purpose intended. Ms. Propp requested further clarification of how the access on Union Avenue will function. Mr. Burich displayed on the site plan how the traffic will enter the access on Union Avenue and circulate through the site and how the exits on Union Avenue and Wisconsin Street would function. He further explained how the access on Wisconsin Street was not designed to enter the parking lot from that direction. Mr. Cummings questioned if the number of parking stalls for the site has increased from what currently exists on the site. Mr. Burich responded that this parking lot has evolved over time with the change in use however the redevelopment of the parking lot has never been approved. The reconstruction of the parking lot is first being presented for review at this time. The previous parking lot use was only temporary. Mr. Thoms inquired if there was an existing storm water detention basin on the site now. Mr. Burich responded negatively. Mr. Thoms commented that he did not know how the Commission could recommend approval of the parking lot without knowing where the stormwater will be retained. Mr. Gohde explained that there is a bioswale storm water management system on the north portion of the site and the development does not have a quantity element as a redevelopment site but a quality element only. He discussed how water would flow from the site to the storm water management area and that there was additional capacity in the storm sewer facilities in this area. He further explained that the city has not fully analyzed the plans at this time and it was currently under review and will be required to meet ordinance standards. He further discussed details on __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 12 February 7, 2017 the quantity detention that is not required on a redevelopment site as the area was previously impervious surface and the existing conditions and the quantity issues that would have to be addressed. Mike Lyster, 612 Elmwood Avenue, discussed the rental property adjacent to the Union Avenue access and the numerous vehicles that park on it and the potential for an altercation with the children in this area with the drop off/pick up location. He felt this was a safety issue and questioned what the plans were for fencing around the parking lot. Mr. Burich responded that the proposed fence would be solid and constructed of chain link with interwoven slats similar to that at the central garage. Mr. Lyster then discussed lighting in the parking lot which he stated is focusing out on the neighboring properties and not just lighting the parking lot area. He felt the entrance was in a bad location however he liked the plantings proposed for the landscape islands. He further stated that he would like to see the upper level of parking stalls on the north be removed as he felt this would be a more green approach which the University claims to be supportive of this type of action. JoAnn Rife, Director of Planning and Construction, 650 Witzel Avenue, discussed the right-in and right-out configuration for the access on Wisconsin Street and that the right-out only access makes it extremely difficult to enter the site through this access. She also discussed the drop off area for children and gave further explanation of where drop offs would occur and the sidewalk extending from this area to the building that would not involve any safety issues related to the rental property adjacent to the entrance. She continued discussion on the number of parking stalls which she believed were 90 stalls initially and would be 123 with approval of the current site plan. She explained that the lighting for the parking lot would be directionally focused to prevent light spillover onto adjacent properties and that the trees on the site will help address lighting concerns as well. Mr. Thoms questioned if there would be “do not enter” signs placed on Wisconsin Street to prevent people from entering from this access. Ms. Rife responded that there would be both signage and markings on the pavement designating this as an exit only access. Mr. Thoms discussed the entrance and exit on Union Avenue and clarified that the drop off area for the children would be near the building and will not be adjacent to the rental property that was discussed previously. Ms. Rife confirmed the location of the drop off area which would be located closer to the building with sidewalk area leading to the building entrance and displayed this on the site plan. Mr. Cummings stated that he would like to see an inventory of the oak trees on the site and discussed his concern with the existing mature trees not being disturbed or destroyed and discussed the area near the proposed entrance on Union Avenue. He stated that the bust currently __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 13 February 7, 2017 in this location would be relocated to the museum and that he felt this portion of the site is unattractive and could be made more aesthetically pleasing. Ms. Rife explained that the fence only extends so far in this area due to driveway visual triangle issues as the vision triangle must be maintained to comply with city ordinance. John Kneer, Rettler Corporation, 3317 Business Park Drive, Stevens Point, petitioner for this request, discussed the concern of tree removal on the site and stated that there was only one tree that would be impacted on the far east side of the site and it was not an oak tree. He further explained that the oak trees on the property are south of the building. He discussed the repaving of the Union Avenue area to relocate the storm sewer lines and that it would not be impacting the root systems of any mature trees. The lighting for the parking lot will involve moving the current light poles to the parking lot islands and changing the fixtures to LED lighting that will be more focused on the parking area. He further explained that they will be adding swamp oak trees to the site and a heavily landscaped area along the bioswale system on the north side of the site. With the proposed parking lot reconstruction, they would be adding 66 square feet of impervious surface to the site from its pre-development status to post development. They would be handling the storm water management as required by the city for both water quality and quantity standards. Bernard Pitz, 617 W. Irving Avenue, stated that he owns the property across from the subject site on Wisconsin Street and that the University is extending the parking lot to the west. He discussed the history of the site and the removal of the grassed area on one portion of the site previously that was not legally done. He also discussed the right-in/right-out configuration for the drive access that he felt was not feasible as people do not abide by it anyway. He continued with discussion on the conditions for the use of the site that were placed on it when the original planned development was approved and that the University was not abiding by those conditions. He stated that employees from the site use Church Avenue for parking so there is no on-street parking for the residents that live in that area. He also discussed the new dormitory that the University constructed and that the facility has less enrollment however they need more parking. He felt they need to address the storm water issues as the area did not used to be impervious surface but a playground. He discussed the extensions the University has received for the parking lot reconstruction and the removal of trees on sites that they redevelop. He stated that this was a residentially zoned area and is not for commercial uses such as this parking lot. Mr. Nollenberger commented that he had been looking forward to this project being completed. Motion by Nollenberger to approve an amendment to a planned development for the reconstruction/expansion of the Lincoln Hall parking lot located at 608 Algoma Boulevard with the following conditions: 1. Base standard modifications from the Zoning Code for the following items: a. Permit reduction of the rear (north) setback to 20 feet. b. Permit reduction of the side (east) buffer yard and setback to 0.44 feet. c. Permit reduction of the front (southeast) setback to 0.44 feet. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 14 February 7, 2017 d. Permit reduction of double parking row island width/area to 5 feet wide and less than 250 square feet in area. e. Allow zero (0) shade/deciduous trees per double parking row island, with the condition that six (6) shade/deciduous trees be planted along the northern perimeter of the parking lot. f. Allow chain link fencing with slats as the exterior materials of the dumpster enclosure with approval from Planning Services. 2. Base standard modification from the Access Control Ordinance to permit reduction of lateral clearance of the Wisconsin Street right-out exit to about 20 feet where code requires a 75 foot lateral clearance. Seconded by Vajgrt. Motion carried 9-0. III. PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED CREATION OF TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT #31 BUCKSTAFF REDEVELOPMENT; DESIGNATION OF BOUNDARIES AND APPROVAL OF PROJECT PLAN Tax Incremental District #31 (the “TID” or “District”) is a proposed 8.05 acre blighted area district located along South Main Street between East South Park Avenue and East 11th Avenue. The proposed District, referred to as the Buckstaff Redevelopment will be created to facilitate a proposed 8.05 acre, $21 million redevelopment project consisting of an 80,000 sq ft multi-purpose arena and public infrastructure improvements. The Canadian National Railroad owns an additional 0.72 acres within the proposed District with redevelopment potential. The City anticipates making total Project Cost expenditures of approximately $5.1 million to facilitate redevelopment within the District. This total is comprised of $5.1 million in potential “pay as you go” development incentives for $1.8 million for extraordinary site costs due to the contamination and site location and $3.3 million in street, utilities, and other public infrastructure improvements. Mr. Burich presented the item and introduced Todd Taves of Ehlers & Associates who are the financial consultants for the city and prepared the project plan for the proposed creation of the TIF District. He reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in this area and discussed the purpose and costs of the proposed District. He reviewed the boundaries of the TIF District and discussed the storm water and remediation costs and other site issues that would be addressed with the $5.1 million development incentives. He discussed further the potential site redevelopment costs as it is a contaminated area and the costs for street and sidewalk reconstruction, and improvements necessary for signals at South Park Avenue and 11th Avenue and sewer and water improvements. He reviewed the project costs and a rendering of the arena to be developed on the site and explained how the developer would be paying for the costs initially and the establishment of the TIF District would provide the funding mechanism to pay the developer back for these costs. Mr. Thoms questioned if the development does not move forward, if the TIF District will be cancelled. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 15 February 7, 2017 Mr. Burich responded affirmatively. Mr. Thoms then questioned if the establishment of the TIF District was to assist the developer with choosing Oshkosh for the location of their development. Mr. Burich indicated that the establishment of the TIF District is showing that the community is willing to move forward with this project and will assist the developer in moving forward. Mr. Thoms commented that there is a portion of property added on the east of the subject site for the arena that is owned by the railroad. He questioned if the TIF District would cover the wrap around road extension that was discussed when the planned development of the arena was reviewed. Mr. Burich indicated that the TIF would have to be amended to add that aspect of the development at a later date if that plan was going to proceed. He further stated that the life of the proposed TIF would be 27 years. Mr. Kiefer inquired what will happen on 12th Avenue and what the current conditions of the road were. Mr. Gohde explained that 12th Avenue is 37 feet wide and was being included in the TIF District as the sewer pipes in that area may be too small to handle the capacity for the arena. He further explained that 12th Avenue is not a concrete street and he does not believe sewer capacity will be an issue as far as serving the arena and 12th Avenue may not be required to be reconstructed. Mr. Burich stated that we add potential projects into the plan that may not move forward to ensure that all costs could be covered and that we can use TIF funding to pay it back if it is deemed necessary. Mr. Gohde commented that we do not need to move forward now with the potential street reconstruction to serve the arena. Mr. Burich added that if the street reconstruction is determined to not be necessary, it will reduce the overall project costs of the TIF District. Mr. Kiefer questioned if the 12th Avenue reconstruction costs are not included in the project plan. Mr. Burich indicated that they were however if it was not needed the city will be able to pay off the TIF sooner than anticipated. Todd Taves, Ehlers & Associates, gave further explanation of project costs which have to be a direct result of the project that the TIF was created to support and that the developer cannot be required to pay for items that are not deemed necessary. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 16 February 7, 2017 Mr. Thoms suggested that the amount of the TIF should be reduced if these costs were not deemed to be necessary. Mr. Gohde stated that they had just completed their analysis this morning and that they do not have a lot of information on this area as it is a very old portion of the city. We may have to reconstruct 12th Avenue if the capacity is found to not be adequate. Mr. Thoms commented that he did not want to see the TIF funds used for other projects as unused funds could be borrowed against and used elsewhere in the city for other purposes. Mr. Borsuk commented that in post construction some of the infrastructure costs may be necessary. Mr. Taves stated that to use this TIF as a donor TIF would require an amendment to the approved District. Mr. Burich added that some items are included as a placeholder to ensure that if the City needs to reconstruct to service the project then TID funds could be used to pay down the project debt. Mr. Taves explained that this portion of the project can be taken out and the TIF could still be a donor TIF in the future as performance of the district effects if it can be used as a donor for improvements to another area of the city. Mr. Burich commented that the city was not borrowing funds and that the existing increment established was to payback expenses incurred by the development. Mr. Kiefer inquired if owners in this area will be accessed for any street improvements or if these costs would be paid for by the TIF District. Allen Davis, Director of Community Development, stated that was yet to be determined and the City was keeping options open at this time and that costs estimates are the only element completed. Mr. Pitz questioned if the property taxes were paid on this site. Mr. Burich responded that he was not sure. Mr. Pitz then questioned if the taxes were not current, who will be paying the back taxes on the property. Mr. Taves responded that this would go into foreclosure and has no effect on the establishment of the TIF District. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 17 February 7, 2017 Motion by Vajgrt to approve the creation of Tax Increment Financing District #31 Buckstaff Redevelopment; designation of boundaries and approval of the Project Plan. Seconded by Thoms. Motion carried 9-0. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 6:40 pm. (Vajgrt/Thoms) Respectfully submitted, Darryn Burich Director of Planning Services