HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes
PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES
March 4, 2008
PRESENT: David Borsuk, Ed Bowen, Meredith Scheuermann, Thomas Fojtik, Kathleen Propp, Cathy
Scherer, Chet Wesenberg, Shirley Mattox
EXCUSED: Paul Lowry, Paul Esslinger, Jon Dell’Antonia
STAFF: Darryn Burich, Director of Planning Services; David Buck, Principal Planner; Jeff Nau, Associate
Planner; Deborah Foland, Recording Secretary
Chairperson Scherer called the meeting to order at 4:01 pm. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present.
The minutes of February 19, 2008 were approved as presented. (Fojtik/Mattox)
I. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW FOR DEVELOPMENT OF
AN OFFICE BULDING AT 230 OHIO STREET
The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit and development plan approval to allow the construction of a
two-story, 5,287 square foot office building in the Bridgeview Centre.
Mr. Borsuk inquired about a site development agreement that was once in place for this area and questioned if it
was still in existence.
Mr. Burich responded that he was not sure and would have to look into the matter.
Ms. Mattox asked if the office building was being constructed for a known tenant.
Mr. Nau replied that the petitioner did not indicate to staff who would be occupying the proposed building.
Ms. Mattox then questioned if the tenant would be government related.
Mr. Buck responded that the staff did not have information on the potential tenant.
Ms. Mattox asked since the property is in close proximity to the river, where the public would have access to the
riverwalk in this area.
Mr. Burich replied that the public would access the riverwalk from either the fishing pier to the east or the bridge
to the west.
Mr. Wesenberg arrived at 4:10 pm.
Motion by Borsuk to approve the conditional use permit/development plan for development of an office
building at 230 Ohio Street as requested.
Seconded by Scheuermann. Motion carried 7-0-1. Ayes-Borsuk/Bowen/Scheuermann/Fojtik/
Propp/Scherer/Mattox. Abstaining-Wesenberg (he was not present for discussion on this item)
II. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN AUTOMOBILE SERVICE
STATION (RENEW FUELING STATION) LOCATED ON W. SOUTH PARK AVENUE 500+
FEET NORTH OF W. 20TH AVENUE
The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit for the development of a Renew E85 automobile fueling
station and associated site improvements.
Plan Commission Minutes 1 March 4, 2008
Mr. Buck presented the item and commented that the owner of the trailer park adjacent to the site contacted him
with concerns regarding the spill over of lighting from the proposed service station.
Mr. Bowen questioned if the sign ordinance was based on the amount of wall area on the structure.
Mr. Buck responded that it was and that since this site would not have a building, the signage would be allowed
on the canopy structure.
Mr. Bowen then questioned if 30% of the area was allowed for signage.
Mr. Buck replied yes.
Mr. Bowen inquired as to the height of the proposed pylon sign for the site.
Mr. Buck responded that the plans submitted did not specify the height, but the zoning code would determine
what would be allowable.
Mr. Bowen asked if the drive access on South Park Avenue would create an issue since it is in close proximity to
the accesses of the two adjacent businesses.
Mr. Buck replied that he had met with the Transportation Director on the matter and he did not have concerns
with the issue as this business would not likely have a high volume of traffic.
Ms. Scheuermann inquired if there would be any access between the West End Pizza lot on 20th Avenue and this
site as she was concerned with patrons of the pizza business exiting through the back of the lot to gain access out
to South Park Avenue.
Mr. Buck responded that there would not be paved area between the sites. The area between the sites would be
occupied by greenspace and landscaping.
Mr. Fojtik questioned if the lighting plan was appropriate for the site.
Mr. Buck replied that the plans submitted appeared to be appropriate as they indicated that there would be no spill
over at the property lines.
Ms. Mattox asked what the distance was between the lighting on the site and the windows of the trailer homes
adjacent to the site.
Mr. Burich responded that there was approximately 65 feet from the paved area on the site to the property line.
Mr. Buck added that per code it is allowed to have .1-.5 foot candles at the property line and the plan submitted
indicated that the light levels at the property lines would be 0.0.
Ms. Mattox then asked what the speed limit is on South Park Avenue.
Mr. Burich replied that it is 35 miles per hour, but he did not anticipate the entering and exiting from the site to be
an issue as this fueling station would not be associated with a retail business on site which should greatly reduce
the amount of traffic.
Mr. Wesenberg questioned if headlights from vehicles in winter would be an issue on the east transitional yard
along the trailer park.
Mr. Buck responded that the code requirements for landscaping should adequately address this issue.
Plan Commission Minutes 2 March 4, 2008
Matthew Clementi, Excel Engineering, 100 Camelot Drive, Fond du Lac, representing the petitioner, stated that
the landscape plan would include numerous arborvitae hedges that should adequately fill in any gaps in the
vegetation along the property lines. He further stated that the open area between West End Pizza and the Renew
station would not be paved and would be, for the most part, a detention area. They would be fine tuning their
lighting plans and the additional of the hedges will help mitigate any spill over at the property line and they
planned to meet or exceed City requirements. They have measured the distance between the canopy and the
mobile homes and it was 140 feet. They will be making adjustments to their signage plan prior to final approval
and there would be less lettering on the canopy than depicted in the rendering. It would be less than the 30% code
requirement.
Jay Stoflet, Director of Retail Marketing for Renew E85, 4995 State Road 91, stated that the pumps would be
different than the ones it the rendering in that they would be more equivalent to a standard pump, more square
than tall. He further stated that there would be no building on the site other than the pumps and canopy and that
the business would be self serving accepting credit or cash payments only.
Ms. Scherer inquired if there would be any light spill over at the property line for the hotel adjacent to the site.
Mr. Stoflet replied that there would not be. Currently, the lighting plan may not be sufficient, but it would be
increased only to the bare minimum to meet City code requirements as they did not wish to disturb any
neighboring properties.
Ms. Scherer questioned if they had any problems with the condition placed on this request to require two parking
stalls to be provided.
Mr. Stoflet responded no. He further stated that they would be not only utilizing the current landscaping on site,
but would be planting additional vegetation on the perimeters of the site. They are an environmentally conscience
business.
Ms. Propp asked if they would be keeping the mature trees existing on the site.
Mr. Stoflet replied that they would be as much as possible. A few may have to be trimmed. He added that the
height of the pylon sign is adjustable to meet code requirements.
Motion by Scheuermann to approve the conditional use permit for the development of an automobile
service station located on W. South Park Avenue as requested.
Seconded by Mattox. Motion carried 8-0.
III. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND RENEWAL TO
PERMIT THE CONTINUED OPERATION OF A USED AUTOMOBILE SALES LOT AND
VEHICLE TOWING/TEMPORARY STORAGE BUSINESS AT 1701 FOUNTAIN AVENUE
Resolution 06-58 granted a conditional use permit and approved a development plan (CUP/PD) for the operation
of an automobile sales lot and a towing/temporary vehicle storage use at 1701 Fountain Avenue. A condition of
said CUP/PD limited the approval to a two year period at which time the site and uses were to be reviewed for
compliance with the CUP/PD and the Municipal Code. This petition is said review.
Mr. Buck presented the item and displayed photographs of the site from both 2006 and 2008 demonstrating that
the conditions for the site have not been met and numerous other zoning code and property maintenance violations
exist on the site including but not limited to incomplete fencing, mechanical equipment still on the roof,
incomplete landscaping and weeds exceeding code allowance, outdoor storage of vehicles and debris, parking
areas not striped, building not maintained, towing vehicles outside the designated parking areas, vehicles outside
of parking areas including 30-40 vehicles parked in a grass area.
Ms. Scheuermann inquired if the renewal of the conditional use permit had to be for two years.
Plan Commission Minutes 3 March 4, 2008
Mr. Buck responded no that the CUP is usually granted to run with the use on the property until the use ceases to
exist. This particular CUP was issued for two years for a trial basis.
Ms. Scherer stated that the storage of vehicles is obvious in the pictures of the site and questioned how temporary
storage is defined.
Mr. Buck replied that outdoor storage was to be located inside the fenced area only and the business was to be
maintained and operated with no expansion of the historic use of the site. Vehicles are parked in the truck stop
area and appear to be inoperable and other non-truck stop related equipment being added to that site is considered
to be an expansion of that historic use.
Ms. Scherer then questioned if staff had received a response from the DOT yet regarding auto sales violations on
the site.
Mr. Buck responded that the DOT had not provided an official response at this time, but they did make
observations of the site and stated that they did not see buyer’s guides in the windows of vehicles on site and were
planning to re-visit the site this week.
Ms. Scheuermann inquired about the fire code violations and the owner’s failure to fix citations issued for the site.
Mr. Buck replied that the fire code violations were not related to the CUP although they are part of the site review
and that citations had not yet been issued to the owner as the City was giving him ample time to comply with
correction notices issued.
Ms. Mattox questioned if staff had comparison photographs from 2006 and 2008 to see the differences in the site
since the original CUP approval.
Mr. Buck stated that the pictures displayed adequately documented the condition of the site both in 2006 and 2008
although they were not taken from the exact same angles. It does depict the minimal landscaping on the site and
the partial fencing that was not completed which was the only progress witnessed on the site since 2006.
Mr. Bowen inquired when the property changed in ownership.
Mr. Buck responded that Mr. Rangeloff originally leased the property, but he did not know when ownership
changed from Mrs. Collins to Mr. Rangeloff.
Mr. Bowen then inquired if prior to the change in ownership, was the past owner operating this site as a truck
stop.
Mr. Burich replied that Mr. Rangeloff leased the site prior to the purchase and was operating it as a truck stop.
Dave Winkel, 36 Jewelers Park Drive, Neenah, representing Mr. Rangeloff, stated that he felt staff was
misinforming the commission and that there has been progress on the site since the initial issuance of the CUP on
February 14, 2006 when the Common Council approved it. He further stated that this site has always been
operated as a truck stop and that Mr. Rangeloff leased the site prior to the purchase of it with the condition that he
would be able to add selling and towing of vehicles to the use on the site. He stated that Mr. Rangeloff had met
most of the conditions placed on the initial CUP despite what staff has said about conditions not being met. He
stated that condition #1 and #2 did not require any action on the part of the owner and that condition #3 referring
to “the site/business is maintained and operated per the submitted site plan and that there is no expansion of the
“historic” uses on-site without prior approval” he did not understand the meaning of. He stated that the striping of
the parking lot which staff claims was not completed was done in the front area and he pointed out on the site plan
the area he indicated. The remaining parking area was not striped where the storage tanks were previously located
as the ground was still in the process of settling since the tanks were removed in 2006. The Wisconsin
Department of Transportation was taking property around the perimeter of the site and was also taking away the
current exits on Fountain Avenue and Green Valley Road and new exits were to be created on Fountain Avenue.
The WisDOT would be preparing a new site plan and submitting it to the City for approval. The landscaping and
Plan Commission Minutes 4 March 4, 2008
fencing noted in the conditions were completed although part of the fence will need to be removed per the
WisDOT.
Mr. Buck commented that the fence was not completed on any portion of the site. Posts were not cut off and caps
were not installed.
Mr. Winkel responded that the fencing was not completed since most of it would have to be moved due to the
WisDOT acquisition. In regard to condition #4 relating to storage on the site, this is a repair facility and cars are
going to be parked outside waiting for repair.
Mr. Burich asked about all the vehicles parked behind the trailers.
Mr. Winkel replied that this was located in an area that was added to the site after the site plan was approved.
Mr. Burich inquired if cars were being parked in that area now.
Mr. Winkel responded yes that cars have always been parked there and that Mrs. Collins sold this parcel to Mr.
Rangeloff after the issuance of the original CUP and that it was not part of the approved site plan. No notices of
violation have been received and he contends that it was a legal nonconforming use.
Mr. Burich questioned who authorized the parking of unlicensed vehicles in this area.
Mr. Winkel stated that this existed prior to the parcel becoming part of the city.
Mr. Burich stated that he disagreed with this statement.
Mr. Winkel stated that we were not dealing with anything that was not part of the original site plan.
Mr. Burich asked if the use on the additional parcel was related to this site.
Mr. Winkel responded that he did not understand the question.
Mr. Burich then asked why the cars were parked there and if they were for sale.
Mr. Winkel replied that they were not for sale, but were being stored and that this part of the property has always
had storage on it and was not part of the conditions or the site plan. There have always been vehicles stored on
site.
Ms. Scheuermann commented that she did not see how the outside storage of parts, fluids, and tires were part of
the repair business and considered temporary vehicle storage.
Mr. Winkel contended that outdoor storage of this type was not occurring and a picture should be produced
proving that claim.
Ms. Scherer stated that one photo in the staff report on page 61 displays a pile of tires on the site.
Mr. Winkel claimed that these tires were not located on Mr. Rangeloff’s property and that it must be Omni Paint
& Glass’s property. Actually several of the photos presented were Omni’s property and not Mr. Rangeloff’s.
Yvette Collins left junk on the site and they also have piles of dirt and debris on their site and the City has not
cited Omni for it yet.
Mr. Borsuk questioned if Mr. Rangeloff bought an additional parcel adjacent to his property and added it to the
site.
Mr. Winkel responded that his client leased the property in 2004 or 2005 and Mrs. Collins sold the additional
parcel to him since then, but it was not part of the CUP and there were no restrictions on the use of this area.
Plan Commission Minutes 5 March 4, 2008
Mr. Burich disagreed with this statement.
Mr. Winkel reiterated that it was a legal nonconforming use and that there should be no restrictions on the
additional parcel purchased.
Mr. Burich stated that this was a violation of city ordinance and no use was approved for this parcel. Unlicensed
vehicles were being stored there which is not acceptable.
Mr. Winkel stated that the landscaping required in condition #5 was done and summarized the plantings.
Ms. Scherer questioned when the landscaping was completed.
Mr. Winkel replied that it was completed early on, but some of it has died. It was not replaced since the WisDOT
was taking the property.
Mr. Burich asked if an updated landscape plan had been submitted.
Mr. Winkel responded that it was.
Mr. Burich asked Mr. Buck if a revised landscape plan had been received by staff.
Mr. Buck replied no.
Mr. Winkel then stated that a site plan had been approved that showed the landscaping on it which should have
been sufficient. The WisDOT has asked for a new site plan which will include landscaping, grading, and drainage
plans. Condition #6 regarding the fencing to be installed in the tow storage area-fencing was done and approved
by staff, but the cap was not put on because the WisDOT is taking some of the property and Mr. Rangeloff was
not going to complete improvements to an area that would have to be redone. Condition #7 relating to
improvements to the structure was not completed due to the WisDOT’s acquisition, but Mr. Rangeloff will be
removing part of the old building and will rebuild it. Condition #8 relating to towing-related vehicles being
limited in parking location-there was one towing vehicle that was parked outside of the designated area, but that
was because it was for sale. Mr. Winkel claimed that Mr. Rangeloff had complied with the conditions of the CUP
until the WisDOT got involved and that he was requesting an extension of the CUP for one year. He stated that it
was all going to change and that Mr. Rangeloff would be hiring an engineer to prepare new site plans including a
new building, parking lot, etc.
Ms. Scherer questioned when that would be done.
Mr. Winkel responded that it would be submitted within 30 days.
Ms. Scherer then questioned if the site would continue with the same use of auto sales, towing and temporary
storage.
Mr. Winkel replied yes.
Ms. Scheuermann asked Mr. Winkel if he was claiming that there were no violations on this site and all conditions
had been met except for the portion that the WisDOT would be acquiring.
Mr. Winkel responded yes.
Ms. Scheuermann asked staff if they agreed.
Mr. Buck replied no.
Ms. Scheuermann commented that she felt it was reasonable to not fix things in areas about to be condemned.
Plan Commission Minutes 6 March 4, 2008
Mr. Buck responded that there were violations in all areas of the site and that a planned development sits on the
property and does not exclude areas to be condemned by the WisDOT. Mr. Rangeloff had two years to meet the
conditions of the CUP and Mr. Winkel is claiming that correction notices issued by the City are incorrect. Mr.
Buck further stated that the photos of the site in 2006 depicted the condition of the property at that time and Mr.
Rangeloff claimed that the approval to add uses to the site would give him the additional revenue to make the
necessary improvements. After viewing photos of the site in 2008, it does not show any signs of improvement to
it. Even without the conditions of the CUP, the site has numerous City violations and staff does not wish to have
the CUP renewed at this time. After the WisDOT re-designs the site, a new CUP can be applied for.
Ms. Propp asked if the truck stop use was grandfathered in.
Mr. Winkel replied that it was.
Ms. Propp then asked what use would continue if the CUP is denied.
Mr. Winkel responded that it would still be a truck stop.
Ms. Propp stated that it used to be when it was still active.
Mr. Winkel stated that towing, food service, gas sales, truck weighing and washing and truck and trailers repairs
were all previous uses of the truck stop. The selling of used vehicles was added when the CUP was issued.
Ms. Propp asked if the CUP was not renewed, the site could not longer sell used vehicles and what else would
change.
Mr. Winkel replied nothing else would change.
Mr. Borsuk questioned if towing and storage would be considered part of the truck stop.
Mr. Winkel responded that the overall business includes the towing and storage operations.
Ms. Propp inquired about the previous statement made by Mr. Winkel that the WisDOT would be drawing up a
new site plan for Mr. Rangeloff’s property. She stated that the petitioner usually works with the Department of
Community Development on this procedure and she did not feel that this statement sounded correct.
Mr. Winkel replied that he meant that the WisDOT would be paying for the preparation of the new site plan. The
WisDOT would have input on the reconfigured perimeter and new accesses to the site.
Ms. Propp questioned if the additional parcel added to the site would be included in the re-designed site plan.
Mr. Winkel responded that it would.
Mr. Wesenberg asked if the CUP was renewed for one more year, what improvements would be made during that
time.
Mr. Winkel replied that the WisDOT had to reconfigure what areas they would be acquiring and that
Mr. Rangeloff would not be doing anything until the re-designed site plan was approved. He further stated that
this was a great opportunity for both the owner and the City to upgrade the site with the help of the WisDOT.
Ms. Scherer stated that the CUP was to allow vehicle sales on the site and she was not convinced that sales were
taking place on the property. The pictures provided do not support that claim and she was wondering how many
vehicles have been sold in the past year.
Mr. Winkel responded that the CUP gave permission to allow this activity, but it was not a requirement. Mr.
Rangeloff does not have enough traffic at this site so he has experienced a low volume in sales. He further stated
Plan Commission Minutes 7 March 4, 2008
that Mr. Rangeloff has sold two cars in the past 30 days, but he did not have a count on how many were sold
within the past two years.
Ms. Mattox inquired as to how many employees work at this site.
Mr. Winkel replied that three full-time employees worked there and occasionally some part-time employees.
Mr. Borsuk stated that he believed the business was expanded upon and he understood that the site plan was
prepared to include the initial parcel only. He further stated that he wants to see good planning for the benefit of
the City and he realized that this was not an easy project from the start, but it did not appear that the City was
getting cooperation from the owner on these matters and there also appeared to be a lack of communication. If the
owner is planning to demolish and reconstruct the site, that may be in the best interest of everyone involved, but
he did not believe that the WisDOT is the cause of all the problems. He was not comfortable with the request to
renew the CUP for an additional year.
Ms. Scherer agreed and stated that she was disappointed on how things have transpired with this site.
Mr. Bowen commented that according to the owner, most of the blame is being placed on the WisDOT, which he
agrees has impacted the site, however, he feels that a good faith effort to maintain the site is not present. Even
disregarding the fire code violations on site, he still is not comfortable with the request to renew the CUP for an
additional year.
Mr. Fojtik stated that he did not believe the conditions for the initial CUP have been met and questioned if the fire
code violations were considered part of this.
Mr. Buck responded that the fire code violations were part of the overall review for compliance, but were not
relevant to the CUP. He further stated that the commission should consider if they would approve this site if it
was a new submittal.
Ms. Mattox commented that it looks like a business that does not have the resources to do a good job of
maintaining the site and those projects were being set aside. She feels that matters have gone beyond the owner’s
ability to follow through and that denial of the request would cease the selling and storage of vehicles on the site.
She further stated that it appeared to her that the storage of vehicles on site was not on a temporary basis.
Motion by Bowen to approve the renewal of the conditional use permit to allow for the continued
operation of a used automobile sales lot and vehicle towing/temporary storage business at 1701 Fountain
Avenue for one year as requested.
Seconded by Borsuk. Motion denied 0-8.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 5:50 pm. (Scheuermann/
Borsuk)
Respectfully submitted,
Darryn Burich
Director of Planning Services
Plan Commission Minutes 8 March 4, 2008