PLAN COMMISSION CITY OF BERLIN BERLIN, WISCONSIN July 26, 2011 PRESENT: ABSENT: Chrmn Dick Schramer, Charlie Beard, Christopher Lau, Mary Kubiak, Ed Marks, Tony Robinson, David Secora None ALSO PRESENT: Attorney Matt Chier GUESTS: Bill Seno, Harold Featherston, Vic and Jean Dretske, Jeanne Huibregtse, Jerry & Susan Thom, Tom Krueger The July Plan Commission meeting was called to order by Chrmn Schramer. The minutes of the July 5, 2011 meeting were approved on a motion by Beard, 2 nd by Robinson. Beard then amended his motion to include a wording correction, 2 nd by Kubiak 7 Ayes 0 Nays 0 Absent on approving the amendment, 7 Ayes 0 Nays 0 Absent on the minutes approval. Motion carried. The first item was the public hearing on the rezoning request by William Seno, agent for C & H Rentals for property on Seward/Jackson Street to go from R-2 (Residential) to R-3 (Multi-family residential). Seno explained that the proposal includes Sr. Apartment construction. It will be independent living with no on-site personal assistance provided to the tenants. The units would be for people who generally still drive but want to get away from the upkeep of property. There are 3 buildings, 8 units in each planned, each with 2 bedrooms, about 1000 square feet, one story, 1-car attached garage, handicapped accessible with amenities such as a roll-in shower and no steps. The site provides generous setbacks on the north, west, and south sides providing the ability to save the mature trees on the north and west and allow for an open space on the south side. It will also provide a green buffer for the single family homes in the area. Seno continued last month he was asked about additional on-site parking (in addition to the stalls by the units), and it is his intention to increase that amount. Present site shows 4 stalls, however felt upon additional viewing the site, more open stalls could be added to the layout. This may lower the number of units, but has not finalized that aspect. Jean Dretske of 295 N Washington Street then asked Seno about the need for this type of units in Berlin. Had there been a market study done? She also asked who the owner would be as there have been a couple of names mentioned when Seno held a neighborhood meeting a while back. At that time in addition to him, ADVOCAP, CAP Services, Berlin Senior Village LLC, were all mentioned. To ensure what is being proposed is carried through as discussed, ownership details are important to the neighbors. Dretske also expressed concern if they became low-income units for non-seniors and any guarantee the company could
provide any guarantees that would not happen. She also asked if the development would be tax exempt in the future. Seno responded that the owner is a new LLC which is a single purpose LLC. It will be created and used exclusively for this development. ADVOCAP and CAP Services will be a general partner in the development. After the project is built and operational, he (Seno) leaves the project and it would most like be ran through the CAP partner. CAP has a lot of developments throughout the state and they are generally the managers of the units and the decision maker for the project. They run very good developments. With regard to market demand, he sees a demand in this area, but even though the market may be soft due to economic trends, this type of housing is still important due to the market they target. The elderly can continue to be independent, however not have the upkeep of homes so Seno felt there was a definite need in the area. He continued that most other units in town are not restricted to just Seniors and also noted the rural population who move into town as they age. The company will do a market study but felt confident it will demonstrate a need. Seno continued with regard to future use of the site, he felt confident that a market study would show a need for the Berlin area. There will also be a land use restriction deed recorded noting for the next 30 years the occupancy of the units will have to be for ages 55+ to live there, there will be income restrictions in place, and also rent limit restrictions imposed. Seno also mentioned there is a live-in property manager who will oversee the development. The ownership of the project will be a for-profit LLC, financed through the tax credit program therefore it will not be tax exempt, however after 15 years, that could be a possibility. After the Tax Credit program and depreciation is done, the units could be sold to a non-profit agency and at that time could request for tax exemption. Dretske asked who CAP Services was and Seno explained CAP is a regional agency (non-profit) who provides expertise in professionally running housing projects. CAP Services is out of the Stevens Point area and ADVOCAP is the regional area Green Lake County is in. ACVOCAP is from Fond du Lac. Because ADVOCAP/CAP will have a 1% ownership in the units from the start, it has been his experience that they are the agency which would acquire the property from the LLC. The LLC is usually made up 99% by investors of the for-profit LLC but Seno could not give the names of the investors because it has not been formed yet. The cities contact on issues would be through ADVOCAP and they are the responsible agent. Chier explained that CAP Services is a well respected agency in this field. They are funded through Federal and State Programs, have trained staff, and a Board of Directors overseeing the operations. Schramer questioned the ability to guarantee the property being on the tax roll past the 15 years and Seno stated that would have to be a discussion with other parties. With regard to income limit, Secora was told they are adjusted annually based on the inflation factor. Secora then asked about the triangle abutments on the back side of the buildings and Seno indicated that is the mechanical room which has had back porches added for resident use.
Susie Thom of 398 NW Cumberland then questioned the transition to R-3 should the project not move forward. Attorney Chier responded that this could be handled by the ordinance not going in force until such time the Building Permit is issued. That contingency can be incorporated in the final Council action as special conditions cannot be included in a rezoning application but the effective date can be included. Jeanne Huibregtse of 397 Seward Street asked if the units are not occupied, do they have a contingency plan? Would the age be lowered? Income limit increased? Opened up for other type of renters? Seno stated for the next 30 years the age limitation is determined by deed restrictions. If this doesn t hold true the tax credits are lost. The requirements to hold rents to certain levels and also to rent to households that fall within the income limits are also part of this. Seno also noted a discussion with ADVOCAP could be orchestrated, and by obtaining their annual report insight into their operations can be obtained. CAP agencies specialize in this type of activity. Huibregtse asked if the lot to her east (lot 4) had to be rezoned since it was not going to be built on and Seno indicated the intent is to keep it green space and if the main parcel building area met the density requirement, the separate lot would be acquired but would not have to be built on. It could be removed from the rezoning petition or there could be a deed restriction that it would not be built on. With no further questions, Schramer opened the public hearing. He called 3 times for anyone to speak in favor of the request and 3 times for anyone to speak against the request. Hearing none the public hearing was closed. Kubiak asked when the market study would be done and if it were unfavorable would the project halt? Seno responded it will be initiated next month and he felt confident the market study would show favorable results but if it didn t produce a need, yes the project would stop. Marks mentioned placing deed restrictions on lot 4 and if the restriction was binding, which Chier responded the Commission should consider the long term effect of a no build clause added to a parcel. That goes on indefinitely and may not be in their best interest for the future. Seno indicted he would not build on the lot to which Huibregtse indicated that satisfied her concern. Seno then explained income requirements noting it is not based on net worth, but rather on annual income so it opens up availability to many retirees. Schramer questioned if the tax issue could also be considered as part of the deed restrictions and Seno responded that he could only guarantee the length of time that the tax credits run (15 years) and he could not comment on the situation after that time. That would have to be a discussion with the next owner, if the City was looking at a payment in lieu of taxes, etc. Neubauer commented that ADVOCAP presently owns other property in town which is tax exempt. With no further questions Marks made the recommendation to rezone the parcels as outlined to the Common Council, changing Lots 1, 2, and 4, of Certified Survey #3128 from R-2 (Residential) to R-3 (Multi-family Residential), commencing at the point of the application for a building permit for the construction of the project as outlined. 2 nd by Beard. 7 Ayes 0 Nays 0 Absent Motion carried. The next item for consideration the Conditional Use Permit request for the same property which was to allow multi-buildings on a singular lot. Seno had no additional information as it was all previously discussed but was available for questions.
The public hearing on the Conditional User Permit was opened and called 3 times for anyone to speak in favor of the request and 3 times for anyone to speak against the request. Hearing no comments or concerns the public hearing was closed. Chier continued that the Commission should consider referencing deed restrictions on a lot as deed restrictions go on indefinitely and placing them on Lot 4, may cause problems in the future. Secora mentioned the site plan comes back to the Commission so the need for inclusion of Lot 4 could be looked at between now and that time. Beard stated the parcel could be included in this rezoning allowing the process to proceed and deleted by Council. Seno also noted his revised site plan will adjust the layout, making more off site parking available to the complex. Chier stated the effective date for the CUP could also be the date the site plan was approved to allow for modifications and review. Dretske asked if the Commission could include a reference to future tax payments as a deed restriction and Seno commented that WHEDA has a 30 year required restriction for occupancy but does not include reference to taxes. That matter should be discussed with the potential future owner. Schramer asked if postponing the action tonight would cause an undo hardship. That way the CUP conditions noted tonight could be compiled in the next month allowing the review at the Plan Commission level prior to Council in August. Seno said it would not. Construction is to commence in the fall of 2012 and the initial funding application was already submitted so putting off the finalization until August was acceptable. Items discussed will include any covenants on the parcel and future tax consideration. Secora then made the motion to postpone any action of the Conditional Use Permit until the August meeting, 2 nd by Lau. 7 Ayes 0 Nays 0 Absent Motion carried. The next item for discussion was a Certified Survey Map for Tom Krueger and a property he has at 567 E. Marquette St. His intention is to split a large portion of the lot off and the new owner wants to build a new home on the larger parcel (6.469 acres). The existing home will be on the smaller lot and both parcels meet the code requirements. As none of the Commissioners saw a problem with the parcel split, Marks made the motion to approve the CSM as presented, 2 nd by Robinson and forward it to the Common Council. 7 Ayes 0 Nays 0 Absent Motion carried. A public hearing for an ordinance creating the ability to apply for a Special Exception Permit for setback variances in the B-1 district for front, side, and rear yard areas was next on the agenda. The public hearing was opened and called for 3 times for anyone to speak in favor and 3 times for anyone to speak against the request. Chier provided the over view stating this ordinance is pertinent to downtown areas, which if a building was in need of reconstruction, would allow the owner to receive a special exception permit to have a lesser setback. Special Exception permits have a much lesser burden of proof than a variance and for many of the smaller lots if side yard setbacks were required, it would be a substantial hindrance. With no further questions, Secora made the motion to recommend the Ordinance as stated to the City Council for adoption, 2 nd by Beard. 7 Ayes 0 Nays 0 Absent Motion carried. The final ordinance for consideration dealt with Principal and Accessory buildings. Chier explained a lot of the inclusions were clean-up of language with the biggest change in the City
A-1 zoned areas. For those parcels which are in the A-1 (Agricultural) zoned areas and exceeded 5 acres in size, an out building or accessory structure could be built. Presently, in A-1 it states all parcels must have a primary structure (house) on them first. The public hearing was opened and called three times for anyone to speak in favor of the request and three times for anyone to speak against the request. Hearing none the public hearing was closed. Marks then made the motion to recommend to the Council the adoption of the Ordinance amending the zoning regulations relating to Principal and Accessory Structures and uses, 2 nd by Secora. 7 Ayes 0 Nays 0 Absent Motion carried. There was no old or new business. Next meeting date is August 30, 2011 Meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m. on a motion by Marks, 2 nd by Beard 7 Ayes 0 Nays 0 Absent Motion carried. MARY LOU NEUBAUER Zoning Administrator