PLAN COMMISSION
February 1, 2007
Members present: Breault, Koch, Yoerg, Mailloux, Gilbert, Caruso and Bieraugel
Others present: Jay Andrews, Dave Magnuson, Marc Putman, Roger Tomten, Renata Coty, Jon Anthinson, Jay Griggs, Ed Dulak, Judy Olson and others
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m.
Motion by Koch, seconded by Yoerg to approve the meeting
minutes of January 11, 2007. Motion carried.
Petition for vacation / discontinuance of dedicated right of way west of Dominion Drive and south of Crest View Drive (former Exit 2 Drive) – St. Croix Crossing , LLC and VB Properties, LLC. Darnold noted that the area of right of way north of lots 4 and 5 of the plat of Exit 2 have only been partially improved; and there is, as part of the dedicated right of way, a 60 foot green area north of lot 4 (former Perkins site) and south of the Crest View Drive / I-94 Frontage Road right of way. The petition for discontinuance / vacation has been submitted by St. Croix Crossing, LLC, owner of the former Perkins site and joined by VB Properties, the abutting property owner to the west of the former Perkins site.
Darnold showed a map of the proposed area to be discontinued immediately north of lot 4. He further explained that a street right of way may be vacated by one of two methods; initiated by the abutting property owner(s) or the city may initiate the process. The petition received by the city does meet the criteria of sufficient signatures of the remaining frontage within 2,500 feet.
Darnold explained there exist city water and sanitary sewer
trunk mains in the right of way, the city should be provided an easement the
width of the right of way. The width of
easement that is necessary is due to the depth of the sanitary sewer. Darnold further commented that the petitioner
should also agree that any improvements that may be placed over the easement
may need to be disrupted to repair or maintain the water and sewer lines. Darnold also noted that an issue that must be
considered is the possible redevelopment of an off-ramp similar to the off-ramp
of the former Exit 2. The purpose of
reopening the exit would be to reduce traffic at the
Page 2, Plan Commission
February 1, 2007
Yoerg stated that WisDOT would likely require a feasibility
study to be completed and that he is concerned about cars stacking at the
intersection of
Darnold stated he felt that the vacation of the right of way has merit, but that the process to vacate the right of way needs to be decided, whether the city will initiate the vacation or to wait to get additional signatures by the property owners. The city attorney has expressed concern about the city initiating the process without terms for the utility easement being agreed to.
David Magnuson, counsel for St. Croix Crossing stated that they would be agreeable to an easement for public sanitary sewer and water services, but also suggested that a provision that the property owner be responsible for paying for the costs of reconstruction of any parking lot improvements that may be made, if the city would need to disturb the site to repair or for maintenance of the utilities.
Darnold noted that the plan commission may keep the issue at the plan commission to further discuss or to provide a recommendation to the Common Council to initiate the process of public hearing either through the property owners, with additional signatures to be provided; or the city initiating the process with the city attorney agreeing to terms of moving the process forward. Darnold reminded the plan commission that initiating the process does not bind the Common Council to approving the vacation and that the public will have an opportunity to make comment at the hearing.
Gilbert suggested that the city should require in an agreement that if part of the right of way, currently being petitioned for vacation, is needed that the owners will rededicate it to the city. Magnuson commented that issue could be addressed, but should be limited in some quantifiable terms.
Caruso expressed support for the possibility of a roundabout
and redevelopment of the old Exit 2 off-ramp as it would assist in traffic
demand at
Bieraugel noted that two parties are involved in the petition. Darnold noted he reviewed the petition with
the city attorney and that the amount of property owners for the remaining
frontage on
Page 3, Plan Commission
February 1, 2007
Motion by Yoerg, seconded by Gilbert to recommend to the Common Council to go to public hearing for the discontinuance of the right of way north of lot 4, plat of Exit 2 with the process to be determined by the city attorney with the city to obtain easements for the sanitary sewer and water utilities, that an agreement addressing the property owners’ responsibility to restore improvements that may be placed over the easement area and the adjacent owners agree that they will rededicate land if needed for the redevelopment of the off-ramp. Motion carried. Bieraugel abstained.
The following discussion was held prior to consideration of the motion:
Koch asked if there may be an opportunity for additional property owners to sign a petition. Darnold noted that if the property owners want to add signatures that would be allowed, but that the public hearing will also allow them an opportunity to comment. He noted that he discussed the issue with a property owner and another interested party in the area and that they may want to reserve their comments for the public hearing. No other people at the meeting commented for or against the issue of vacation. Breault stated the city should begin the process and go through the public hearing.
Yoerg reiterated concern of traffic at
Breault suggested that the city engineers review the issue
of whether adequate area is available at
Gilbert reaffirmed that he does not want to have to repurchase right of way, if the off ramp can be reconstructed in some form.
Continued review of guidelines, standards and regulations / policies and analysis / architectural review of projects in the downtown business area – Community Development Director and Putman Planning and Design. Marc Putman, Putman Planning and Design reviewed the slide presentation presented at the open house on January 18th. Putman emphasized the need to provide mixed uses in the downtown business area and noted that early in the process the issues focused on building height and massing. Putman noted there were many other issues that had to be addressed, but should result in a cooperative public / private sector relationship where both parties win. Issues that need to be addressed include off-street parking, floor area ration (FAR), building height / incentives, collar retail, increased building value and rent levels. The city’s policies should provide an incentive for development by allowing maximum floor area and add market appeal through quality development.
Page 4, Plan Commission
February 1, 2007
Putman noted that the planning for the downtown business neighborhood is a dynamic process with issues changing as discussions take place. It is important for the private sector to share information regarding development to allow the city to better understand the issues / challenges that the developers face.
Putman advised that incentives to provide for a greater quality of development should result in improved public and private spaces, but these areas need to be anticipated and planned for rather than be a reaction to development. The consistent application of the guidelines will assist the overall quality of development and enhance the cooperation and relationship of adjacent developments under separate ownership.
Incentives suggested by Putman included an exception for off-street parking for the first 6,000 sq. ft. of building area, funding assistance for structured parking, distributed parking throughout the downtown area, and reducing the visibility of utility lines by placing them underground.
Property owners to become eligible for incentives shall work in cooperation with the city to implement the design guidelines and cooperate with nearby developments.
Views to and from the river is a significant issue, but the river has not always been highly visible as noted in a 1960 aerial photo of Lakefront Park south of Walnut Street. Putman opined that the significance of the downtown area is not only the relationship to the river, but also the architecture and sidewalk environment.
Putman noted that they have prepared some alternatives for specific development, but that it is not detailed information. Putman emphasized that the massing is just that, only masses or examples of massing considerations.
Putman reviewed the
Page 5, Plan Commission
February 1, 2007
Mailloux stated the devil is in the details and that how proposed guidelines apply is a concern that the plan commission must soon begin to discuss. Putman responded that it was not his desire to leapfrog the plan commission, but that he will soon be reviewing in more detail how the standards may apply.
Putman reviewed a development concept that is an alternative
to the original concept presented by GCI.
The alternative concept included wrapping the building along the north
and
Breault commented that the alternatives provide a straw man to facilitate discussions.
Mailloux questioned the enforcement of the river way regulations if the city proposes amendments. Darnold noted that the city implements the river way regulations, based on the state administrative rules. Does the city enforce color requirements, Mailloux asked. Darnold noted the color regulations, if applicable, are administered by the city.
Yoerg inquired about the difference of the portrayal of the
graphics shown of the older part of the downtown and the potential of
development at the
Caruso noted that with substantial parking underground the buildings brought closer to Second Street the two block area of River City Center takes on a similar appearance to the historic area of downtown. Caruso stated that development costs will be high and the city should consider using incentives to gain a higher quality of development.
Gilbert noted that the detail of rooftops is an important issue to consider. Putman noted that there is a “green” or sustainable element in the proposed guidelines.
Mailloux noted that the city should be determining what the city wants and that the comments he has received from the community is that the buildings should not be too large and the overall massing should be limited to one block areas.
Breault suggested that in review of alternative plans the plan commission should interject what they want or what they like or dislike.
Page 6, Plan Commission
February 1, 2007
Judy Olson voiced that the
Bieraugel stated the city should be open to allowing some of the height to exceed the 45 foot height limitation, but also to try to gain a variation of height to create interest. Caruso suggested that each block might have a separate height limitation.
Koch expressed concern that the city should not be responsible for the profitability of a private development. She expressed support of the use of shared parking standards. However she questioned the use of tax increment financing as an incentive. She is concerned that the riverfront areas should not have to be provided incentives and the city needs to be protective of the riverfront area from over development.
Yoerg stated the plan commission members need to keep an open mind on the issues of development as many good examples of development have been reviewed, but that he continues to struggle with the issue of the size of the buildings and he encouraged height differentials in individual buildings to be implemented.
Ed Dulak, noted that when GCI initiated discussions with the city that tax increment financing (TIF) was not an available development tool, because of the existing district limitations. But if utilized it will not only assist developers, but the overall downtown area. He commented if a tax increment district is well planned it can be a win / win situation for both the developer and city.
Breault commented that the city must determine the needs for a tax increment district (TID), if and when a TID can be created, and how the increment revenues may be used.
Darnold noted the plan commission will need to address the
issue of zoning standards including height, alleyway setbacks and parking
regulations. It is beginning to appear
that it will be difficult to address those issues prior to March 8th
and that the moratorium may need to be extended. Darnold explained that the city has advanced
this issue considerably, but time is running out under the current imposed
moratorium. Darnold referred to the
Mailloux asked how the
Mailloux asked if the third floor was for residential units. Putman noted that was part of the initial proposal. Ed Dulak noted that GCI proposed that the first floor was intended for retail, second floor for the hotel and third floor for condominium residential units.
Page 7, Plan Commission
February 1, 2007
Bieraugel asked about the use of tax increment financing
(TIF). Darnold noted that he is trying
to set up a workshop to review the use of TIF in downtown areas. Darnold said he will see if Ehlers and
Associate representatives can be available for a meeting on February 8th. Darnold gave an example of the city of
Breault asked Putman to provide copies of the alternative 6 plan to the plan commission for review and comment.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m. by Chairman Breault.
Respectfully submitted,
Dennis Darnold, Secretary