Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 21, 2000 PRESENT: Lee Bettes, Lurton Blassingame, Melanie Bloechl, Steven Gehling, Donald Krueger, Achim Reschenberg, John Ruppenthal, James Smith, and David Borsuk, Chairman EXCUSED: Donald Pressley STAFF: Jackson Kinney, Director of Community Development, John Bluemke, Principal Planner and Vickie Rand, Recording Secretary The meeting was called to order by Chairman Borsuk. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. The minutes of the November 7, 2000 Plan Commission meeting were approved as mailed. Krueger/Blassingame. Unanimous. I: CONSENT AGENDA A: Land Division: East of and adjacent to 2240 Westowne Avenue Kent Kowalik, petitioner for Westowne Centre, LLC, owner, requests the Plan Commission to review and approve a one lot land division for property east of and adjacent to 2240 Westowne Avenue. The general area is characterized by commercial land uses, and the property is zoned C-2PD General Commercial District with a Planned Development Overlay. Kent Kowalik, 21375 Belgren Road, Waukesha, introduced himself as the representative of the owner of the property, and stated they were selling the land to Culver’s for development. Motion by Ruppenthal for approval of the land division west of and adjacent to 2240 Westowne Avenue. Seconded by Bloechl. Motion carried 9-0. II: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW EAST OF AND ADJACENT TO 2240 WESTOWNE AVENUE Kent Kowalik, petitioner, requests the Plan Commission to review and approve a conditional use permit/development plan for property located west of and adjacent to 2240 Westowne Avenue. The land use pattern in the area is commercial in character, and the subject site is zoned C-2PD General Commercial with a Planned Development Overlay. Plan Commission Minutes Page 2 November 21, 2000 Kent Kowalik, 21375 Belgren Road, Waukesha, passed around a color picture of the proposed Culvers restaurant for the Plan Commission to review. Mr. Ruppenthal questioned if Westowne Avenue would remain 2 lanes or become a 4 lane Avenue. Mr. Kowalik stated the road was 40’ wide and could become 4 lanes in the future, however, there were no plans for that to happen at this time. Discussion followed regarding parking not allowed on the road, and the design of the road with the input from the Department of Transportation (DOT). Mrs. Bloechl asked if the other Culver’s Restaurant in town would be closed. Rick Miller, owner of Culver’s property, stated they have recognized two distinct markets in Oshkosh, therefore he had no intention of closing the other Culver’s Restaurant in the City. Mrs. Bloechl sited past examples of businesses who closed one store after bringing a second store to town regardless of their promise to have both in operation, and offered the City’s help to work with Culver’s if that would ever become a consideration. Mr. Smith questioned what they were doing to enhance the back of the restaurant seeing that it faces Highway 21. Mr. Kowalik stated that gables, masonry, and decorative signage will be used to enhance the building. He also stated the City’s landscaping code was quite dense and would be used to screen the building and the dumpsters. Mr. Smith stated that he felt this was a minimum enhancement to one of the prime entry’s to the City, and stated he would like to see more done to ensure the aesthetics of the area are appropriate for a main entrance to the City of Oshkosh. Mr. Reschenberg asked if any consideration had been given to the entrance of the restaurant for ease of traffic flow such as a flared approach. Mr. Kowalik stated the driveways would be designated for ingress only and for egress only, with the standard radius used. Mr. Reschenberg stated we need to plan now for the kind of development to occur that would not create a problem as the area grows. Mr. Kowalik stated he had presented the plan to the traffic review board regarding the driveways and also had discussions on the volume estimates of what Westowne Avenue would be, compared to what Koeller Street is now. He stated the general feeling as a result of the meeting was that once the peak development is reached on Westowne Avenue it would only be 50% of what Koeller Street is now. He presented a couple points to consider, the first being that only 300,000 square feet of retail development will occur on Westowne Avenue compared to 1.2 million square feet on Koeller Street, from Walgreen’s on the Corner of Koeller Street and 9th Avenue south to the Target Store. The second point discussed was that people from Westowne Avenue will be traveling there mainly to patronize the businesses because of more internal streets to use in the area and an exit to Highway 21 near the McDonald’s restaurant, unlike Koeller Street where there is limited access to other roads. Discussion followed regarding the DOT’s study of the area, the development yet to take place and how the design of the road was looked at very closely when it was designed. Mrs. Bloechl expressed her concerns with the lighting in the area. Mr. Kinney stated they recognize a need for a traffic light, and stated he would talk with Mr. Huddleston, City Transit Director, Mr. Kowalik, and the DOT, and encouraged the Plan Commission to allow development to proceed in the area. Chairman Borsuk questioned how many more land divisions would be made for development on Westowne Avenue. Mr. Kowalik stated he expected at least two more land divisions. Chairman Borsuk questioned if the additional lots could have cross access agreements to reduce the number of Plan Commission Minutes Page 3 November 21, 2000 driveways on Westowne Avenue which may create the possibility to eliminate one of the Culver driveways. Mr. Kowalik stated the traffic review board had discussed driveways and cross access agreements in detail and concerns were brought up regarding safety issues with drive-thru traffic and internal traffic crossing one another. Discussion continued on alternative suggestions to any conceived traffic problems. Chairman Borsuk also expressed his concerns about the rear of the restaurant, and asked what the developer was willing to do architecturally as well as with landscaping to make the rear of the building more attractive. Rick Miller stated that was a very sensitive issue for them as well, as they wanted to have a business that was attractive from the highway. He stated they would use landscaping and gable on the back of the building to look like the front using either brick or split block Discussion continued on the design of the rear of the restaurant. Mr. Miller stated he would have the architect work on the design and bring it back for the Plan Commission to review. Betty Gerard, 1120 Garfield Street, stated designing the rear of the restaurant to look like the front may be confusing to the customer, as to where to park and enter. Mr. Bettes asked if the curb cuts had been approved with the final Menards development plan. Mr. Bluemke stated revisions in the drives had been made. He continued to explain the current code as discussed with the Traffic Review Board that allows for cross access between commercial properties. He stated the developers are aware of the feelings of the Traffic Review Board as it applies to curb cuts, and the one way driveways were apparently made for safety reasons. He stated there probably wouldn’t be 2 more driveways developed on Westowne Avenue without some cross access agreement. He also discussed the two curb cut types allowed at this time by the City Ordinance. He stated City staff is currently reviewing some changes in the City’s Ordinance in regard to the types of curb cuts that would be allowed. He suggested an additional condition to read: the north elevation to include architectural features similar to the front of the structure be submitted to and approved by the Department of Community Development prior to the building permits being issued. Mr. Smith stated wouldn’t support another condition stating the north elevation be designed similar to the front, but questioned if there was an ordinance similar to the Highway 41 Corridor Overlay. He suggested an additional condition to state: the north side facing highway 21 be revised to meet the standards of the Highway 41 Corridor Overlay subject to staff approval. Mr. Bluemke stated there were perhaps standards in the Highway 41 Corridor Overlay that they wouldn’t want to impose in this case. Discussion followed whether another condition was needed for curb cuts. Mr. Reschenberg sited examples of what he didn’t want to see continue to be developed. Mr. Patek stated he was working with Community Development, and City Transit regarding the revision of the City’s Ordinance as it pertains to curb cuts, and can’t make a recommendation at this time. Motion by Smith to include a second condition that the side of the site facing Highway 21 be revised to present an acceptable appearance towards Highway 21, with said plans to be approved by staff. Seconded by Blassingame. Motion carried 9-0. Motion for a condition number 3 to look into a greater flare for the ingress only of the property. Seconded by Bloechl. Plan Commission Minutes Page 4 November 21, 2000 Mr. Smith stated he wasn’t opposed to Mr. Reschenberg’s condition, however the Department of Public Works and Department of Community Development staffs are already working on this to come up with a standard and not apply it to this property. Mr. Reschenberg stated he was concerned about this development taking place without the driveway approach being addressed. Motion carried 5-4. Nays: Gehling, Krueger, Ruppenthal and Smith. Motion by Blassingame for approval of the Conditional Use Permit/Development Plan for Culver’s Restaurant with the following conditions: 1)A landscape plan be submitted to and approved by the Department of Community Development prior to a building permit being issued. 2) The side of the site facing Highway 21 be revised to present an acceptable appearance towards Highway 21, with said plans to be approved by staff. 3) To look into a greater flare for the ingress only of the property. Seconded by Smith. Motion carried 9-0. III: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/DEVELOPMENT PLAN MODIFICATION: 3105 S. WASHBURN STREET Brian Wogernese, petitioner for Evergreen Hospitality, LLC, owner, requests the Plan Commission to review and approve a conditional use permit/development plan for property located at 3105 S. Washburn Street. Brian Wogernese, 3423 Sheppard Drive, developer of the hotel, stated the type of siding on the shed was an oversight on their part and would be willing to upgrade it with a glass and brick exterior, and would also remove the signage on the roof. He also discussed the future parking on the current site plan that was not on the previously approved site plan. He stated a lot of debris was hauled out to allow future parking. Mrs. Bloechl asked what kind of material would be used to upgrade the shed exterior and what percent of the exterior would be upgraded. Mr. Wogernese stated some masonry or brick would be used on approximately 30 percent of the exterior. Mrs. Bloechl asked why they would want to retain an old shed on the property with a hotel that had quite a contemporary design. Mr. Wogernese stated they didn’t see it as an old shed, but rather as a compliment to the area. He noted that the Settler’s Mill had rather a rustic look in front of the outlet mall next door. He stated the shed will also protect the hotel by blocking the view of 10 dumpsters at the Prime Outlet Mall. Tom O’Brien, General Contractor, stated when they originally looked at the site they didn’t consider the shed. He stated with further consideration they realized it was a sound building that has been there for years, and with some remodeling he believed it would fit in nicely with the other crafts offered in the area. Plan Commission Minutes Page 5 November 21, 2000 Mr. Gehling stated he didn’t see any harm in leaving the shed. He stated it has existed there for many years, and many retailers seem to like the rustic look. He stated he would approve of retaining the shed on the property as long as it was remodeled to satisfy the Highway 41 Corridor Overlay. Mr. Blassingame stated the City staff and committee’s have worked hard to set standards for the Highway 41 Corridor and didn’t approve of allowing a development to set a precedent. Mrs. Bloechl suggested to lay over the item and allow the developers to come back with a new site plan for the building. Mr. Ruppenthal stated the first plan submitted was the best as he felt this proposal was far from the standards of the Highway 41 Corridor Overlay, and a lot of work would be needed to make it look presentable. Motion by Blassingame for approval of the Conditional Use Permit/development plan for property located at 3105 S. Washburn Street that would retain the barnwood shed, and allow for a roof sign on the shed. Seconded by Smith. Motion denied 0-9. IV: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: 910 W. MURDOCK AVENUE Dave Heather, petitioner and owner, requests the Plan Commission to review and approve a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow for heavy truck inspections on the property at 910 W. Murdock Avenue. Chairman Borsuk questioned why a conditional use permit was necessary for this use. Mr. Kinney stated this use was only allowed in an industrial district. Dave Heather, 240 Gateway Drive, Waupun, owner, stated he also didn’t understand why a conditional use permit was needed. He stated there would be no assembly or manufacturing on the site. He also stated the previous use had a full service center and body shop which serviced motor homes, medium duty trucks, and heavy duty trucks. He stated they are not changing the use at all. He stated he couldn’t see how 28 trucks could have a negative impact on the area. He noted these are quality Oshkosh Trucks, and a total of approximately 9 employees would be preparing them for delivery. He stated the building was built for that type of use with overhead doors and high ceilings. He stated he brought along a representative from Oshkosh Truck to further explain the type of work that would take place on the site. Steve Schwartz, Oshkosh Truck representative, stated this facility would be used for a post manufacturing operation. He stated the trucks would be inspected on site and road tested at a site other than Murdock Street. He noted small repairs would be done on site, however, if larger repairs were needed the truck would be sent back to the main plant. Mrs. Bloechl asked how many tons the average truck weighed, and how many wheels they had. Mr. Schwartz stated the trucks weigh about 15 tons, with between 3-7 axles per truck. He stated they had a diesel engine which met EPA standards for noise. Mrs. Bloechl stated it was a residential neighborhood and questioned the starting and moving of trucks from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. Mr. Schwartz stated they wouldn’t be starting any trucks at 6 a.m. He stated they would move the trucks inside at night so they would be warm for inspection in the morning. Plan Commission Minutes Page 6 November 21, 2000 Mrs. Bloechl also asked about security with the open lot. Mr. Schwartz stated Oshkosh Truck has looked over the lot and concluded with additional camera’s and the street lights there should be enough security to deter vandalism. Mrs. Bloechl questioned if this was the only place in town that offered an adequate facility for their needs. Mr. Schwartz stated it was the only facility with the ceiling and door height they needed, and their need was quite immediate. Mrs. Bloechl questioned if they had worked with Chamco to locate an appropriate facility. Mr. Schwartz stated he had. Chairman Borsuk questioned what the maximum number of trucks that could be inspected in one day would be. Mr. Schwartz stated the maximum would be10 trucks a day. Shirley Mattox, 1313 Jackson Street, questioned what route would be taken to get these trucks to the facility on Murdock. Mr. Bluemke stated they would take Highway 41 to Highway 110 to Algoma Boulevard to 910 W. Murdock Avenue. Mr. Kinney stated from a zoning standpoint the staff recognized that this would not be a manufacturing activity, however it didn’t have to have assembly done on site for a conditional use permit to be required. He stated this use exceeds the normal repairs that have previously occurred on the site. He stated the staff’s interpretation was that work on these heavy duty trucks constituted a use that is to be located in an M-1 Light Industrial District, and also permitted in a C-2 General Commercial District with a conditional use permit if the Plan Commission and Common Council determines this use is compatible within the given setting. Mr. Kinney stated this area may be a compatible use for car sales or a service center, however, when these heavy-duty trucks were introduced staff didn’t feel this was a compatible use. Mr. Smith stated he didn’t want to set a precedent to allow heavy trucks or manufacturing type of activity into this type of setting. Mr. Blassingame stated the proposed use would be less intensive, have less vehicle activity, and the neighbors would be safer with 10 big trucks in the area compared to the amount of activity a dealership and service center would have on the neighborhood. Mr. Gehling agreed with Mr. Blassingame. He stated the property was on a highway where big trucks did normal activity every day, and he couldn’t see the negative impact 8-10 new trucks would have on the neighborhood. Mr. Borsuk also stated he also disagreed with the staff’s position on this issue. He stated the facility is located on a highway, and part of the Plan Commission’s responsibility is to stager high density into lower density. He stated having 20 vehicles moved a day was a low impact use compared to a full dealership with a service center on site. He stated this should be supported for a valued employer in our community. Mr. Bettes stated he was concerned about the harsh way the property would look with the front parking lots left deserted looking for years to come. He stated he couldn’t see any improvement to the area. Mr. Ruppenthal stated he felt this was a very intense use for this neighborhood, and to close to a quiet neighborhood atmosphere. Plan Commission Minutes Page 7 November 21, 2000 Mr. Borsuk stated a letter had been distributed to the Plan Commission from James Zucker and Gary Garbe in opposition of the proposal. Motion by Bloechl for approval of the conditional use permit for testing heavy trucks at 910 W. Murdock Street to be found consistent with Standards set forth in Section 30-11 (D) of the Zoning Ordinance. Seconded by Krueger. Motion denied 4-5. Nays: Bloechl, Krueger, Reschenberg, Ruppenthal, and Smith. V: PUBLIC HEARING: 2001 – 2005 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND 2001 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM ACTION PLAN The Department of Community Development Staff request the Plan Commission to review and accept the 2001 – 2005 Capital Improvement Program and 2001 Community Development Block Grant Action Plan Jackson Kinney presented a slide presentation that highlighted the projects in the 2001 Capital Improvement Program and the 2001 Community Development Block Grant Program and Action Plan. He noted the Plan will go before the Common Council on November 28th, 2000 for their review and approval. Chairman Borsuk opened the public hearing for the 2001 CIP/CDBG Program at this time. Betty Gerard, 1120 Garfield Street, stated that a topcoat of black top with no curb and gutter would be better suited for the street. She stated that there are no terraces, and the street butts up against the sidewalk at many places along the block long street now. She stated when snow is a factor there is not enough room for 2 cars to pass. She also explained the hardship the neighbors have when trying to back recreation vehicles in their driveway, as they have to use the opposite sidewalk to have room to maneuver. She stated with a curb this would be impossible. She also pointed out that three of the five addresses on the street are either retired or widowed, and would have difficulty paying for street improvements. Mrs. Gerard also stated the street is so narrow that the City can’t get their equipment down the street for snow removal. She said she thought she was signing a petition for a blacktop overlay. Chairman Borsuk asked Mr. Patek, Director of Public Works, to respond to Mrs. Gerard’s statement. Mr. Patek stated that Garfield Street was designated for total reconstruction with new sewer and water mains. Mrs. Gerard also stated that Vine and New York are proposed to be reconstructed at the same time and questioned where they were supposed to park. Mr. Patek stated the contractor will work with the property owners to maintain access until the concrete is poured. Mrs. Gerard stated she also has a utility pole next to her property posing an additional hardship. Mr. Patek explained the process of working with the surveyors and the power company to address these issues. Mrs. Gerard asked if the neighborhood would have the opportunity to approve or disapprove of this construction. Mrs. Bloechl stated they will have an opportunity to be heard at the Common Council meeting on November 28, 2000. Alice Kunde, 1121 Garfield, stated she has lived in the neighborhood for 32 years and the neighborhood has got along fine without curb and gutter to date. She also stated she would have difficulty paying for street improvements on a limited income. Plan Commission Minutes Page 8 November 21, 2000 Jane Putnam, 1116 Garfield Street, stated she has lived in the neighborhood for 33 years. She stated there is no room on the street for curb and gutter since the houses are so close to the road she didn’t see how more property could be taken for the street improvements. She stated blacktop would be sufficient for their little street, as there wasn’t a lot of traffic. She also didn’t see how she was going to pay for street repairs. Mrs. Kunde, made a suggestion for a speed bump to be placed on the street for safety, as there are many college students that use the street. Gerald Jacklin, 408 Monroe Street, stated they wanted Washington Street to remain at 32’ from Bowen Street to Broad Street. He pointed that keeping the 32’ width would promote slower traffic, and retain wider terraces for planting of trees. He stated there are no businesses or schools located in the 3-block section on Washington from Monroe to Lake Winnebago, and there is less traffic with the hospital no longer located in the area. He stated the residents located there want to keep the 32’ width. He made reference to a book titled Transportation Land Use Plan, Oshkosh Urban Area, listed Bowen Street and Washington Avenue as collector streets to Lake Winnebago. He noted how a limited terrace would also present a hardship for property owners snow removal, and how basically the residents want to keep the neighborhood intact. Mr. Jacklin asked if he should submit a letter to the Common Council on these issues as well. Chairman Borsuk stated there is comment in the Citizens Advisory Committee Report on this issue and his comments will be listed in minutes from this meeting that will be sent to the Common Council for their review before the meeting on November 28, 2000. Cheryl Jacklin, 408 Monroe Street and also the owner of property at 602 Washington Avenue, stated that she didn’t support widening the street since many terraces now are presently only 3.5’ – 4’ in front of many homes. She noted how Broad Street had no terraces and was a very blighted area and didn’t want to see the area made worse. She stated the residents along Washington east to the Legion (about three blocks) don’t want the street widened. She also noted they have a crime watch in the area, and they are trying to bring back a warm residential feeling to the neighborhood, one in which they are proud to live in. The public hearing was closed and discussion returned to the Plan Commission at this point. Mr. Kinney stated he was looking for approval from the Commission that this document was consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Motion by Blassingame for acceptance of the 2001 – 2005 Capital Improvement Program and 2001 Community Development Block Grant Action Plan, together with a finding that listed projects are not in conflict with the City of Oshkosh’s Comprehensive Plan. Seconded by Bloechl. Motion carried 9-0. Mr. Smith questioned the destruction of the Railroad Bridge, and the opportunity to save it for a fishing pier, and get rid of the shanties in the area. Mr. Patek stated he has sent a request to the Department of Community Development and the Parks Department and they are reviewing the situation. Mr. Patek stated that with approval of the Coast Guard they hoped to be able to keep a portion and demolish the remainder of the bridge. Mrs. Bloechl stated with the federal dollars received for the project there was certain guidelines that would need to be followed. Chairman Borsuk commented on the expense of $1.2 million dollars to demolish the old water plant. Plan Commission Minutes Page 9 November 21, 2000 VI: NORTH MAIN STREET REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA NO. 1 - MODIFICATION # 2 This item is recommended by the Department of Community Development and involves the expansion of the boundaries of the North Main Street Redevelopment Project Area No. 1 to include the following properties:  The building/property at 315 N. Main St. that was formerly occupied by Walgreens.  The former Boys & Girls Club building/property at 502 N. Main St. and two adjacent vacant parcels.  The former WG&R building/property at 19 Merritt Ave. Under Section 66.43, Wisconsin Statutes, cities may undertake activities to eliminate and prevent blighting conditions. These activities may include acquisition, site clearance, reconstruction and rehabilitation, and they must occur in a designated area in accordance with a redevelopment plan. The City will only apply powers granted by this section to those properties identified for acquisition in the plan. Mr. Kinney stated that the Modification of North Main Street Redevelopment Project Area No. 1 was being done to add two properties to the area to reflect the land swap being made with Father Carr between the properties at the corner of Merritt Avenue and Jefferson Street, and Robin and Koeller Streets, and to bring in the former Walgreen’s property so the City can move forward with the aquisition of that property to carry out the recommendation of the Downtown Action Plan relative to the development of Market Square. Mr. Kinney also stated the primary reason of the modification was because of the environmental issues on the northwest corner of Jefferson and Merritt where a gas station previously existed. He stated the City will be able to use the muncipal exemption to have testing done to find out what needs to be done to take care of any problems. Motion by Blassingame for approval of Modification #2 to the North Main Street Redevelopment Project Area No. 1 and that the boundaries of the project plan area be changed accordingly, and that the City proceed with the acquisition of 315 N. Main Street, 502 N. Main Street, and 19 Merritt Avenue. Seconded by Smith. Motion carried 9-0. OTHER BUSINESS I.SMART GROWTH PRESENTATION Mr. Kinney stated that in December there will be a slide presentation on Wisconsin’s Smart Growth Law with literature available. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned. Respectfully submitted, JOHN C. BLUEMKE Principal Planner JCB/vlr