A meeting of the City of Kaukauna Plan Commission was called to order at 4:00 p.m. on Thursday, October 5, 2017, by Chairman Rosin.
Members Present: McGinnis, Oldenburg, Penterman, Rosin, Sundelius, Feldt, Schoenike, VanderSanden.
Also Present: Planning Director Jakel, City Attorney Davidson, Planning/Engineering Tech Holmes, Media, Interested Citizens.
Minutes. A motion to approve the minutes of the August 3, 2017, meeting was made by McGinnis, seconded by Penterman. All members voted aye. Motion carried.
Mr. Jakel explained the procedure of this initial review of the proposed development. Kevin McDonald of Commonwealth Development explained the history of the company and an overview of the project. Proposed are 12 two-bedroom apartments, 4 one-bedroom apartments and 4 three-bedroom apartments in the former school and church building with 20 units of townhouses on the Hendricks Avenue side of the property. Onsite property management will be part of this project along with other amenities. The housing density of the project will be 4.5 units per acre – the surrounding neighborhood is 5 units per acre.
John Johnson, Business Manager for St. Catherine Drexel, explained how the project would help the parish with the property. He explained developing the site as single family was not financially possible as he had several developers look into doing just that. He also stated that Commonwealth Developers as of now were the only interested party. Mr. Penterman asked if more units would be constructed on the south side of the property. The developer stated there would not be. Mr. Schoenike asked what would prevent the developer from placing more units in the future. Mr. Jakel explained the Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning district and how it can be used to limit what can be done on a parcel. Mr. VanderSanden asked if the landscape and traffic flow plan has been finalized. Mr. Jakel explained it would be part of the PUD plan.
Reg Munes of 2100 Sullivan Avenue asked if the pond would be fenced. Mr. McDonald stated it may be fenced or may be a dry pond, although it’s too early to tell until the engineering is completed. Bonnie Landreman of 2100 Welhouse Drive explained that she did not want multi-family housing on this site and was told in 2015 that there was enough multi-family in the City. She also asked what the rent would be. Mr. McDonald stated the rent would be about $726 per month. Greg Landro, the broker for the property, stated his first choice for development of the property was Commonwealth Development and development of this site would be an asset to the City. Peter Mulemans of 2608 Main Avenue was questioning multi-family apartments with low rent and the kind of people that would be drawn to this development. He would like to see senior housing at the site. Karen Jansen of Lavern Lane was concerned about the increase in traffic and the type of people who would be living there. Julie Thorps had concerns with the traffic and property values of the surrounding homes. Laurie Baldwin of 2616 Main Avenue was not in favor of the development and had her property rezoned to single family to keep multi-family away from the site. She would like to see a church or a school built on the site instead of multi-family. Peggy Dahlin of 2201 Main Avenue stated that she was in favor of Commonwealth Development being the firm who was redeveloping the site because someone was going to be doing something there and it may as well be them. Nick Heitpas wants to see a park or a school at the site instead of multi-family. Kitty Verhagen of 1801 Welhouse Drive stated traffic is bad in the area because of the schools – other times of the day it is not bad at all. She would like to see some taxes brought in from the property and a small playground would be nice for the neighborhood.
There being no further comments the Mayor asked the commission to continue with the agenda.
Mr. Holmes explained the situation with Benchwarmers Tavern and the desire to install a parking lot on a vacant residential property next door which the tavern purchased. The Common Council desired the screening language and the parking surface language to be included in the Commercial Core District when the rezoning was before the Council. Mr. Holmes explained the City Attorney recommended the following language to be added to the Commercial Core District along with the Central Business District while we were at this as both sections of the code lacked the following protections for adjacent owners of residential property.
17.20 (6) Parking Surface Requirements. All parking areas shall be surfaced with a durable, dustproof surface consisting of concrete or bituminous concrete or of compacted gravel or crushed stone properly sealed and surface treated.
17.20 (7) Incompatible Use Buffer Requirements. All areas wherein parking surfaces or vehicular traffic fall within 10 feet of a property line abutting a single family dwelling or two family dwelling shall require a fence, hedge or landscaped buffer, as set forth in Section 17.32 Supplementary district regulations.
Mr. Sundelius asked for the part of 17.20 (6) above to be removed, or of a compacted gravel or crushed stone properly sealed and surface treated. He would like this to be removed from section 17.32(7)(h)7 under section 17.32 supplementary district regulations.
A motion was made to direct the City Attorney to draft the proper Ordinances changing Section 17.20, 17.21, and 17.32 by Sundelius seconded by Penterman upon roll call all members voted Aye. Motion carried.
Mr. Holmes explained the rezoning of the Commercial lot behind Clever K 9 the lot was residential in shape has all of the necessary utilities and was adjacent to residential property. The owner wishes to construct a single family home on the parcel. A motion was made by Schoenike to approve the rezoning seconded by McGinnis, all members voted aye. Motion carried.
Mr. Jakel explained the owners of 2010 Autumn Lane were present and would like to purchase 20 feet of property from the City of the future park off Haas Road. The Commissioners asked for the matter to be placed on the agenda for a future meeting with the proper maps.
There being no further business to be brought before the Commission, a motion to adjourn the meeting at 6:05 was made by Penterman, seconded by Sundelius. All members voted aye. Motion carried.
Jason Holmes, Planning/Engineering Technician