Joint Meeting – Plan
Commission and Common Council
Thursday, April 12,
2007
Plan Commission: Breault, Koch, Yoerg, Mailloux, Gilbert, Koch, Caruso and Bieraugel
Common Council: Breault, Wyland, O’Malley, Koch, Morrissette and Radermacher
Others: Devin Willi, Gordon Conard, Pat Smith, Jamie McGovern, Jon Anthinson, Al Keller, Chas Reissen, Judy Olson, John Mingo, John Erickson, Denny Darnold and others.
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m.
Motion by Yoerg, seconded by Mailloux to approve the 3/15/07
plan commission meeting and the 3/22/07 plan commission / Common Council
meeting. Motion carried.
Motion by O’Malley, seconded by Wyland to approve the
3//22/07 Common Council / plan commission meeting. Motion
carried.
Development plans for
exterior improvements,
Darnold reviewed the plans to modify the exterior of the
building at
Marc Putman commented that improvements were principally being provided to the west addition and suggested that the dividing element between the first story and the new sunroom should be provided to provide an architectural feature. Mingo expressed concern about providing a separating element of brick since they have not been able to find brick that will match the existing brick. Putman expressed that the window panes should be smaller if available or that the top of the windows should be provided with an arched architectural element that would add interest to the window panes. Mingo stated he has tried to find this kind of treatment. Putman stated that he may be able to assist in that matter.
Yoerg questioned if any changes to the accessory building on the west side of the alleyway were proposed. Darnold stated that no changes are proposed.
Page 2, Plan Commission / Common Council
April 12, 2007
Wyland stated that the sunroom and screen porch should have a hip roof. Putman and Mingo noted that the sunroom and screened porch will have a hip roof line on the north, west and east facing elevations.
Motion by Caruso, seconded by Bieraugel to recommend approval
of the development plans for
Motion by O’Malley, seconded by Radermacher to approve the
development plans for
Continued review of
guidelines, standards and regulations / policies and analysis / architectural review
of projects in the downtown business area – Community Development Director and
Marc Putman, Putman Planning and Design.
Darnold and Putman reviewed a flow chart to be prepared as requested by Don Gilbert regarding how a program involving architectural review and use of financial incentives may work. Darnold suggested the creation of a downtown coordinator position and an architectural review committee to work with the Common Council / Plan Commission and Community Development Director to review proposed projects for compliance with the development guidelines and applications for financial assistance. The flow chart also reviewed the relationship between the review boards and a proposed tax increment district (TID) which would be one source of funding to assist businesses and property owners in the downtown commercial district.
Bieraugel noted that he is in agreement with the concept of the use of incentives through a tax increment financing program and not through the use of general tax dollars.
Koch noted that if the guidelines are well done that there may not be a need for financial incentives.
Yoerg asked what is the public receiving in return in benefits from the creation of a tax increment district and downtown improvements. Breault responded that the community will receive an improved downtown and public improvements that the city may not otherwise to be able to afford. Lee Wyland noted that the community must receive a mutual benefit for the public to support the concept.
Gilbert noted that he believes that incentives are necessary to provide for improved parking conditions in the downtown, but noted that other programs besides tax increment financing should be used.
Putman noted that the principal use of the incentives will be to provide additional parking.
Page 3, Plan Commission / Common Council
April 12, 2007
Al Keller, GCI Builders noted that the city can reduce the risk of tax increment financing by creating a “pay as you go” method which the developer borrows the funds and there is an agreement between a developer and the city that the city pays the developer back as designated in an agreement. This method allows the city to pay the developer a specified amount of the TID revenues and use of other revenues for other specified projects. Keller noted that the city will gain a higher quality design of a development and get rid of blighted building conditions in the downtown area.
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED POLICIES, as per page 14, Downtown Visioning Guidelines for Policy and Design Quality, March 19, 2007, Putman Planning and Design:
1. INCENT AND ENABLE DRAMATIC INVESTMENT: Breault asked for a show of hands on the issue of the use of incentives. A significant majority of the plan commission and Common Council agreed to endorse the use of incentives for added plan and design quality and features, distributed parking and other leverages.
2. ENACT AN OVERLAY DISTRICT THAT EMPLOYS MIXED-USE
SHARED PARKING REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE URBAN LAND INSTITUTE’S (ULI’S) 2005
SHARED PARKING PUBLICATION. Putman
explained that because the demand for parking by different land uses is not all
at one time, the number of parking spaces for a mixed use development can be
reduced and that ULI’s publication denotes the parking demands for each proposed
land use and what times of day that parking is in demand. Lee Wyland stated that it is his
understanding that standards for specific areas utilizing shared parking will
be periodically re-evaluated to determine the adequacy of parking. Putman confirmed that it is necessary to
periodically re-review the parking demand.
Bieraugel asked Putman if parking is the most significant issue for the downtown redevelopment. Putman responded that yes it is within the context of the overall development, but that the issue of providing a quality pedestrian environment is also very important.
The plan commission and Common Council agreed to endorse the policy of shared parking.
3. CREATE
INCENTIVES FOR PUBLIC / PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP FOR PARKING,
4. CREATE A
PARKING BENEFIT DISTRICT, WITH RULES THAT SHOW PARKING FEES CONTRIBUTE TO THE
SENSE OF PLACE.
5. PROVIDE A POOL
OF PARKING SPACES FOR THE DOWNTOWN PROPERTIES / BUSINESSES THAT
Page 4, Plan Commission / Common Council
April 12, 2007
Putman referred to the map shown on page 11 of the varied opportunities to create parking lots or structures. Darnold noted that the city must continue efforts to complete a downtown master plan which will look at the issue of off-street parking in more detail. Putman stated the city needs to evaluate if the city can create excess capacity to provide accessible parking throughout the downtown. A concern was noted about the willingness of people to walk more than a block or two to their destinations. Putman opined that if the city provides a convenient and attractive environment and the parking is priced right the people will be willing to walk.
Jon Anthinson noted that some of the smaller buildings downtown that have limited parking may be willing to pay for convenient structured parking that they cannot provide themselves.
Mailloux asked if a committee is going to review parking and if there are funds available to support a parking program. Breault responded that parking will need to be addressed in varied degrees and cost to the customer. Darnold mentioned the need for affordable and safe parking for employees of downtown businesses.
O’Malley stated there is a need to provide open parking throughout the downtown as well as metered parking.
The plan commission and Common Council endorsed the policies regarding parking.
6. PROVIDE
INCENTIVES FOR THE MULTIPLE USE APPLICATIONS OF BUILDINGS.
7. PROVIDE
INCENTIVES TO CREATE AND MAINTAIN PRIVATE /
8. PROVIDE INCENTIVES TO ENCOURAGE PROPERTY OWNERS TO WORK TOGETHER. The plan commission and Common Council endorsed the incentives to assist multiple uses, public / private spaces and public / private cooperation between property owners.
9, REFINE VISION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (VIP) BUILDING HEIGHT ORDINANCES TO GIVE INCENTIVES, GENERATING ADDED FUNDS TO PAY FOR BETTER DESIGN AND REQUIRE DESIGNER-OWNER RESPONSE TO GUIDELINES. Bieraugel suggested the height requirements should be more flexible to allow more variety in design. Al Keller offered that the overall height allowance be the average of 45 feet with some building height greater and some less than 45 feet. Darnold commented that an average calculation that includes standards much higher than 45 feet will not be acceptable to WisDNR.
Page 5, Plan Commission / Common Council
April 12, 2007
Putman explained that people should not be concerned that
the redevelopment of
Breault noted that it will be difficult to get the acceptance of a change in the riverway regulations in the very near future by WisDNR, and he suggested agreeing to limit the height of buildings to 45 feet.
Koch asked why there is a need to exceed a height of 45
feet. She expressed concern of how a
building or series of buildings of 45 feet in height will appear from
Mailloux expressed concern that downtown
Yoerg noted that the existing downtown is comprised of groups of smaller buildings and that development should reflect a similar scale.
Wyland stated he liked the overall appearance shown in the
10. SUSPEND THE FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR) REPLACED WITH VISION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (VIP) PARKING REQUIREMENTS. Mailloux asked if there is a track record of providing shared parking or removing floor area ratios (FAR) in downtowns. Putman responded that it has been tried successfully and is increasingly utilized in downtowns where mixed uses exist.
11. CREATE AND
CHANNEL FUNDS TO DOWNTOWN IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT.
12. CREATE AND
CHANNEL FUNDS TO DOWNTOWN DESIGN ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.
13. CREATE AND CHANNEL FUNDS TO A DOWNTOWN CONSTRUCTION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM. The plan commission and Common Council felt this was endorsed within the discussion of the use of tax increment financing policy #1.
Breault asked for comments from the audience.
John Mingo expressed concern about the creation of a three block long series of developments that will not be within proportion to the rest of existing downtown neighborhood. He opined that the new development will create a wall separating the
Page 6, Plan Commission / Common Council
April 12, 2007
downtown from the river. Mingo noted that new development must show variety and a variation of height which will allow existing structures to continue to have views to the river. He offered that this can be achieved by cooperation between the property owners.
Judy Olson stated that a variation of height of buildings is necessary to provide an architectural interest in the buildings.
O’Malley stated that for the city to achieve the quality of development that is desired it must provide incentives as the carrot and with the guidelines and standards as the stick.
Yoerg asked about providing a second public forum to get public input regarding the proposed guidelines and policies that have been discussed during the past two joint meetings. Yoerg suggested further study of the parking needs and traffic issues. He asked how much increased traffic the downtown will be able to accommodate, particularly during peak hour traffic periods.
Bieraugel noted that pages 14 to 21 (March 19, 2007 version of guidelines) should be condensed further for public review; he suggested trying to condense that material into 4 or 5 pages.
Breault suggested that Chamber president Kim Heinemann assist the city with getting the work out about an upcoming public forum event.
John Erickson stated that the property owners have suffered an economic hardship during the moratorium and asked that the city proceed as soon as possible to terminate the moratorium. Erickson noted that there has been a lot of media exposure regarding the planning process and asked what issues or positions may change in guidelines and policies or the plan commission’s and Common Council’s positions from what has been discussed during the last two joint meetings (March 22 and April 12 meetings).
Breault commented that it is the intent of the city to continue to try to educate the public of the city’s proposed program for improvements in the downtown.
Al Keller asked the plan commission and Common Council to come to a consensus and to vote at this meeting to adopt the proposed guidelines and policies.
Page 7, Plan Commission / Common Council
April 12, 2007
Motion by Gilbert, seconded by Yoerg to conduct a public
forum to provide the public an opportunity to review the recommendations of the
plan commission and Common Council and to establish a date and location for the
public forum. Motion carried.
Motion by Caruso, seconded by Gilbert to adjourn. Motion
carried.
Motion by O’Malley, seconded by Radermacher to adjourn. Motion
carried. 8:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Dennis Darnold, Secretary – Plan Commission
Acting Secretary – Common Council