Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutesPLAN COMMISSION MINUTES April 6, 2010 PRESENT: David Borsuk, Ed Bowen, Jeffrey Thorns, Thomas Fojtik, John Hinz, Dennis McHugh, Kathleen Propp, Kent Monte, Karl Nollenberger EXCUSED: Donna Lohry, Robert Vajgrt STAFF: Darryn Burich, Director of Planning Services; David Buck, Principal Planner; Jeffrey Nau, Associate Planner; David Patek, Director of Public Works; Steven Gohde, Assistant Director of Public Works; Tim Franz, Fire Chief, Scott Greuel, Chief of Police; Deborah Foland, Recording Secretary Chairperson Fojtik called the meeting to order at 4:00 pm. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. The minutes of March 16, 2010 were approved as presented. (Nollenberger /Thoms) I.A. ACCEPT ACCESS/PARKING EASEMENT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 686 NORTH MAIN STREET AND 679 -683 JEFFERSON STREET The City, on behalf of area land and business owners, is requesting acceptance of cross - access and parking easements located on the existing parking lot of O'Brian's Tavern at 686 North Main Street and for the future temporary parking lot to be constructed at 679 -683 Jefferson Street. Mr. Buck presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the conditional use permit recently approved by the Plan Commission for a temporary parking lot on Jefferson Street. He explained that this request was to allow temporary access to and the use of O'Brian's parking lot and the temporary parking lot by the general public this summer and fall. Mr. McHugh questioned if the RDA owns the parking lot, why was this request necessary. Mr. Buck responded that the RDA owns the lots where the temporary parking lot is to be constructed however O'Brian's Tavern owns the parking lot adjacent to this lot which is allowing access to their lot for the public's use. Mr. McHugh then questioned if O'Brian's Tavern would be reimbursed for the easement. Mr. Buck responded that they would not be reimbursed for the access easement. Mr. Thorns inquired if this would change the conditions for the conditional use permit approved at the last Plan Commission meeting. Mr. Buck replied that it would not. It would allow for the appropriate easement documents to be drafted, signed and recorded at the Winnebago County Register of Deeds. Mr. Borsuk requested to separate the consent agenda items for separate vote. Plan Commission Minutes April 6, 2010 Motion by Monte to approve the access /parking easement for property located at 686 North Main Street and 679 -683 Jefferson Street as requested. Seconded by Propp. Motion carried 9 -0. I.B. COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 251 -265 RIPPLE AVENUE IN THE TOWN OF NEKIMI The applicant is requesting an amendment to the 10 and 20 -Year Recommended Land Use Maps in the City of Oshkosh Comprehensive Plan. The subject properties are designated for residential use; the applicant is requesting a change to an industrial land use designation. Mr. Nau presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area and explained that the reason for the land use amendment from residential to industrial use was to allow for the installation of a communication tower for cellular service. He also reviewed the current land use in the area and explained that the proposed change to the Comprehensive Plan would follow a navigable waterway which would provide a natural 150 foot buffer between the industrial and residential land use areas. Mr. Thorns inquired if anyone lived in the residential property on the site. Mr. Nau responded affirmatively. Mr. Burich commented that this request was for an amendment to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan only and the area was still under Winnebago County zoning jurisdiction. Ms. Propp asked what the land use was along Oregon Street. Mr. Nau replied that the use was mainly residential. Mr. McHugh inquired what the height of the proposed communication tower was going to be. Mr. Nau responded that plans were not submitted for the proposed tower as the necessary approval would be required from the Winnebago County zoning office not the City of Oshkosh. Mr. Borsuk stated that he felt it was time to look at all the properties in the airport overlay area and how it should be developed in the future. Mr. Burich replied that this issue could be further discussed at a later meeting and that the Commission was responsible to review the request submitted at this point. Mr. Borsuk questioned what uses existed to the west of this parcel. Mr. Burich responded that the land use to the west was all manufacturing with residential uses along Oregon Street. Mr. Borsuk commented that it appeared that County zoning to the west was R -1 and discussed what the long range plans were for that area. Mr. Burich stated that the City's land use maps are intended to be used as a general reference tool for determining appropriate future land use and growth patterns on a broad scale and mapping portions Plan Commission Minutes April 6, 2010 need to be revised on a case -by -case basis to conform to changes in land use patterns or to accommodate logical requests. Mr. McHugh questioned if acting on this request was premature as we do not know if the proposed tower would encounter issues regarding height, etc. Mr. Burich responded that issues regarding the installation of the communications tower would be under Winnebago County's zoning jurisdiction and amending the City's land use plan from residential to industrial would set in motion the process to apply for a conditional use permit for the antenna installation. The issue at hand was to determine if it was an appropriate land use for this area only and it may be necessary to follow up on reviewing the land use in the remaining area at a later date. Mr. Monte inquired when looking at the entire quadrant of this area, how did the growth of the industrial park fit in. Mr. Burich replied that industrial park growth appeared to be natural to the south. Mr. Hinz wished to clarify that a determination was being requested for an amendment to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan only and that it was not affecting the current zoning for the area. Mr. Burich reiterated that the request was for an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan only and that the petitioner would be required to go to Winnebago County to seek approval for a conditional use permit or a change in zoning for the area. This was a land use decision only. Jim Weinmann, agent for U.S. Cellular who is the petitioner for this request, stated that he was working with the property owner on this process. They were proposing to install a tower at this location and the Town of Nekimi had already approved the request and it met the airport's height restrictions. Winnebago County also had no issues with this request however an amendment was required to the City's Comprehensive Plan first for the proposal to proceed. He further discussed the land use in the area which is bordered by industrial uses and felt that the south side of Ripple Avenue was an appropriate fit for industrial use. Mr. McHugh stated that he did not support this request as he felt there were potential issues with both neighbors and the airport. Ms. Propp commented that she did not agree with Mr. McHugh's opinion and felt that since this is a heavily industrial area currently, this was an appropriate land use for this portion of the property. Mr. Borsuk stated that it appeared that U.S. Cellular had did its homework before coming forward with this request and questioned if the owner of the residential use in the area was in support of this request. Mr. Buck replied that the owner of the property was the residential use and he was in support of the land use amendment. Motion by Borsuk to approve the Comprehensive Land Use Plan map amendment for property located at 251 -265 Ripple Avenue in the Town of Nekimi as requested. Seconded by Bowen. Motion carried 9 -0. Plan Commission Minutes April 6, 2010 II. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AMENDMENT APPROVAL FOR A GROUND SIGN AT THE INTERSECTION OF JACKSON STREET AND MARION ROAD (RIVERFRONT LANDING) Green Bay Sign and Design previously received planned development approval (Council Resolution 09 -243) for a ground sign containing an electric message center (EMC) sign for the Riverfront Landing project and Morton Pharmacy in the Marion Road/Pearl Avenue Redevelopment District on a redevelopment site currently under development with Morton Pharmacy and Accu -Com. The current request is to modify the ground sign by moving the location of the EMC from its location near the base of the sign to the top of the sign above both the Morton and development ID signage as well as changing the type /design of the "Riverfront Landing" development ID component. Mr. Burich presented the item and stated that it had been laid over at the March 16, 2010 Plan Commission meeting for further review of the proposal based on potential landscaping and fence feature placement. He reviewed the redevelopment area, the location of the signage, and the previously approved sign which was 13' 7" in height. He explained that the revised request was due to concerns by the petitioner that the fencing would create a visual obstruction for the LED portion of the sign and that City staff was recommending keeping with the originally approved format for the sign with an increase to the height of the sign's brick base by eight inches to resolve the visibility issue. There is a good sight line both up and down the block and the additional height to the base should be adequate to address the matter without further changes to the originally approved signage. He further stated that Steve Morton from Morton Pharmacy is requesting that the sign be raised three feet for visibility purposes or flip the order of the signage to place the LED sign at the top of the sign. Mr. Burich reviewed the proposed fencing for the site as well as other EMC signs on other sites in the city. Mr. Fojtik asked for clarification of the staff's recommendation in that it would be to raise the base of the sign by 8 inches with no change in the order. Mr. Burich responded that the material change for the sign construction could also be considered as the petitioner was proposing to change the original design of the "Riverfront Landing" portion of the sign substituting internally illuminated routed aluminum letters backed with black perforated vinyl for the previously approved aluminum channel letters with "halo glow" at the back of the lettering. Mr. Thorns questioned what the issue was with raising the sign's height and inquired if 8 inches would be adequate as it appeared that it would put the LED only a few inches above the fence and questioned where the fencing would be located in relation to the location of the sign. Mr. Burich displayed on the site plan the location of the fencing and signage. Mr. Thorns then inquired about the landscaping for the site. Mr. Buck responded that species of the landscaping had not yet been identified for the site. Mr. Thorns asked if any trees would be placed on the site. Mr. Burich replied that trees were not planned to be located in this area and a sign of this height was not appropriate for a redevelopment site such as this one. Plan Commission Minutes April 6, 2010 Mr. Buck added that monument -type signage is usual for downtown as they are more urban style signs whereas a sign that is 15 feet in height is more appropriate for the highway corridor setting. Mr. Thorns commented that it seemed that there could be a compromise that would satisfy the business and keep the appearance appropriate for the redevelopment site. Mr. Burich discussed zoning requirements for signage and the planned development district's limitations on signage. He stated that the proposed sign would meet the requirements however the issue was if a pylon -type sign was appropriate for a redevelopment site. Mr. Bowen stated that it appeared that the fencing was about 40 feet north of the proposed sign. Mr. Burich commented that it was not close enough to be a visual obstruction. Mr. Thorns stated that the fence and landscaping features are both issues however the landscaping is an issue that can be controlled. Mr. Bowen inquired about the height of the Sawyer Street sign for Morton's Pharmacy. Mr. Burich responded that it was 16 feet. Mr. Bowen commented that with the addition of eight inches to the proposed sign, it would place this sign at 14'3 ". Steve Morton, Morton Pharmacy, 200 City Center, distributed handouts displaying different versions of the proposed sign and a rendering of the completed site with the signage in place. He commented that the sign would be 84 square feet and he would not consider it to be a pylon sign and the desired screening of the parking lot was driving the issue to raise the signage. He also discussed the change in the materials that was a cost savings of $7700 from the original $25,665 expense for the originally proposed version. He stated that his main concern was to get the sign raised three feet to provide adequate room to be placed above any visual obstructions. He also reviewed the difference between the halo and routed aluminum signs and stated that the additional three feet would put the sign at 16'7' in height. He also distributed photos of a utility box on the site that he was concerned would obstruct the view of his sign which he estimated to be about 4 '/z feet in height. Mr. Monte asked if the rendering displaying the completed site was accurate as far as the location of the fencing. Mr. Morton responded that he was not sure at this time. Mr. Burich added that no landscaping plan had been submitted at this time to verify the location of the fence and landscaping features. Ms. Propp questioned if Mr. Morton did not agree with the eight inches recommended by staff for raising the sign. Mr. Morton replied that he was still concerned with the utility box obstructing the view as it would only be visible from the bridge or immediately passing the sign. Mr. Thorns inquired how far from the utility box the sign would be located. Plan Commission Minutes April 6, 2010 Mr. Burich displayed on the site plan the location of the utility box and the sign. Ms. Propp stated that the design of the sign had been changed as well and questioned which one Mr. Morton would like to proceed with. Mr. Morton responded that he would like to add three feet of brick to the base of the sign with either the halo or routed aluminum letters. He would proceed with the originally proposed design if so desired. Mr. McHugh commented that although the utility boxes were necessary, the Plan Commission needed to limit the installation of these boxes in the city. Mr. Thorns suggested that landscaping could be placed around the utility box and allow the sign to be placed higher as Mr. Morton requested. Mr. Bowen stated that he was concerned about setting precedent in a redevelopment area and suggested that placing the height of the sign at 16'2" would make it comparable to the Morton's sign on Sawyer Street. Mr. Morton responded that he would be satisfied with that proposal. Mr. Borsuk commented that he had concerns with the city and developer's agreements and felt that it was important that developers understand what is expected of them. He also stated that the city needed to review the sign ordinance for the entire community. Ms. Propp stated that quality commercial developments have low lying signs and in this redevelopment area, the sign may still be too high. Mr. McHugh suggested that the transformer box could be incorporated into the base of the sign and that he did not wish to have the sign stand out more than the development. Mr. Monte questioned what entity was in possession of the utility box. Mr. Burich responded that he believed it belonged to AT &T. Mr. Monte commented that looking south on Jackson Street, the utility box would obstruct the view of the LED sign and agreed with Mr. Bowen that the sign should be allowed to be the same height as the sign on Sawyer Street. Mr. Nollenberger stated that aesthetics were important on a redevelopment site Motion by Nollenberger to approve the planned development review amendment approval for a ground sign at the intersection of Jackson Street and Marion Road as requested. Mr. Thorns commented that he agrees with Ms. Propp somewhat and although he is concerned with aesthetics, he feels that we should allow the business owner to advertise his business. He further stated that he felt the sign for the most part fits the design of the site and it is proportionate to the size of the development and he feels it should be allowed to be higher than the increase of eight inches as recommended by staff. Plan Commission Minutes April 6, 2010 Motion by Bowen to amend the approval for the ground sign to allow the design as originally approved with the overall sign to be 16'2" with the brick base of 5'7 ". Seconded by Monte. Motion carried 7 -2. ( Ayes - Borsuk /Bowen /Thoms/Fojtik/Hinz/McHugh/ Monte. Nays- Propp/Nollenberger.) Seconded by Propp. Motion carried 7 -2. ( Ayes - Borsuk /Bowen /Thoms/Fojtik/Hinz/McHugh/ Monte. Nays - Propp /Nollenberger.) III. STREET NAME CHANGE — W. SNELL ROAD CHANGED TO WALTER STREET FROM FOUNTAIN AVENUE/U.S. HIGHWAY 41 OVERPASS TO U.S. HIGHWAY 45 (ALGOMA BOULEVARD) AND FOUNTAIN AVENUE CHANGED TO W. SNELL ROAD Street name change in association with improvements to the U.S. 41 and 45 interchange and Fountain Avenue/U. S. Highway 41 overpass. The north -south segment of W. Snell Road is proposed to be changed to Walter Street and Fountain Avenue is proposed to be changed to W. Snell Road. Mr. Nau presented the item and reviewed the area to be affected by this proposed change. He stated that the item was laid over last summer and that the change was initiated by the reconstruction of U.S. Highway 41 and the reconfiguration of the streets in the area. He reviewed a map of the entire area and stated that changing Fountain Avenue to Snell Road would provide a contiguous street name avoiding confusion with a sudden street name change on the same roadway. The Plan Commission had requested last summer that the city look into other viable options for the street name change from W. Snell Road to Walter Street and it was determined that changing it to N. Snell Road was not viable as it would create two streets with the same name and the address numbers would not match the Winnebago County's addressing system. He reviewed letters from the Fire, Police and Sheriff s Departments supporting these street name changes as well as a Town of Oshkosh resolution supporting the renaming of W. Snell Road to Walter Street. Mr. Thorns inquired how long the street had the name of W. Snell Road and if the change was initiated by it being too confusing in the past and questioned the need to fix the issue by changing the name now. Mr. Nau responded he believed that the north/south portion of Snell Road had retained that name for decades and that the road reconstruction was the best time to address the situation. David Patek, Director of Public Works, added that Snell Road had previously been County Highway JJ and that the change to Snell Road had been instituted when access was stopped back in the 70's due to the construction of Highway 41. Mr. Thorns reiterated what the necessity was to change the street name now. Mr. Patek responded that emergency services would like consistency with the designation of street names and having an east /west street with the same name as a north/south street was not consistent. Also, to change it to N. Snell Road would create incorrect property addresses as the current addresses are in the 1900's whereas the correct numbering system would place those properties in the 3000's. The scenario is not good for public safety. Mr. Thorns stated that he still did not see the need to change the names of the streets. Plan Commission Minutes April 6, 2010 Steve Gohde, Assistant Director of Public Works, stated that he had met with emergency services regarding the issue and calls to Snell Road have a delayed response time due to the current system and since the roads are being reconfigured with the highway reconstruction project, it is optimal to clean up a bad situation. It is confusing to travelers to make a 90 degree turn but still remain on the same street. Mr. Hinz questioned how many properties would be affected on the north/south portion of Snell Road. Mr. Nau replied that there would be six properties affected, five commercial and one residential. Mr. Nollenberger requested to hear statements from the Oshkosh Fire and Police Chiefs. Tim Franz, Fire Chief, stated that the old Snell Road was a curved street with no stop sign and with the new configuration; it would come to a "T" intersection with a stop sign. When 911 dispatchers are dealing with emergency calls, they are often times receiving them from cell phone callers which makes locating the area more difficult. It is more confusing now as the road will pass over Highway 41 and it will be difficult to determine where Snell Road ends and Fountain Avenue begins. The reconstruction project has created a major change in the geography and the situation needs to be cleaned up to avoid delays in critical response time. Scott Greuel, Chief of Police, commented that a controlled point at a "T" intersection is a natural designation for a change in street name and reiterated Mr. Franz's concerns regarding response time in emergency situations. He also commented about the confusion for travelers who are not from the area comprehending why the street name changes from one point to another on the same road or why a street comes to an intersection and does not change names when a 90 degree turn is made. Mr. Hinz stated he would like to work this out for the best of the businesses on Snell Road and suggested that the north/south portion of Snell Road be changed to Snell Street instead. Mr. Greuel stated that public safety and the traveling public should be more of an issue of concern particularly in emergency situations when response time is critical. Mr. Hinz commented that he was looking for some common ground to compromise on the situation to avoid unnecessary costs to the businesses on this road with changing the street name. Mr. Thorns questioned how many properties were affected on Fountain Avenue. Mr. Gohde responded there were four properties affected in this area. Jim Erdman, Town of Oshkosh Supervisor, 2492 Hickory Lane, stated that Tom Buchholz from the Department of Transportation had suggested this change years ago. He further commented that the Walters family lives on the corner of Snell Road and own land in both the city and the town. Mr. Hinz stated that several business owners were present and objected last time this item came before the Plan Commission however they are not present today and since both the Fire and Police Departments support the request, he would be in favor of it. Ms. Propp agreed. Plan Commission Minutes April 6, 2010 Mr. Thorns commented that he was not in favor of it previously, but after clarification from staff for the necessity to make this change and no objections from business owners on the affected streets, he would be in favor of it as well. Mr. Fojtik commented that he appreciated the various city departments that worked together on this project to come up with the best solution to a confusing situation. Motion by Monte to approve the street name changes from W. Snell Road to Walter Street and Fountain Avenue to W. Snell Road as requested. Seconded by Thoms. Motion carried 9 -0. IV. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR A TEMPORARY CONCRETE CRUSHING OPERATION AT 421 OREGON STREET (FORMER MORGAN DOOR PLANT) Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan approval for utilization of an existing off - street parking area at the former Morgan Door Manufacturing facility for temporary concrete crushing operation including the import of concrete pavement removed as part of the Main Street reconstruction, processing and storage of pavement material and the export of base course material back to the Main Street construction project area, when needed. Mr. Buck presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area, the current land use, the site plan and stated that the petitioner was proposing to only use the west side of the site designated on the maps. He further stated that it was only a temporary use from April through September of 2010 for recycling of concrete from the reconstruction of Main Street and explained how the process would operate. He stated that staff had concerns with the Oregon Street access and would be limiting movements on this street to right -in right -out only. He also reviewed the other conditions recommended for this request. Mr. Fojtik questioned if this equipment was the same as the machinery currently being used on Witzel Avenue. Don Rabitz, Vinton Construction Company supervisor, stated that the equipment is currently being used on Murdock Avenue and Jackson Street and is state of the art. They have used it in several urban areas recently without issues and it is equipped with a dust control water system to minimize environmental impacts. Mr. Thorns inquired what the hours of operation would be and how the decibel readings compared to city ordinance regulations for noise. Mr. Rabitz responded that the operating hours would be the same as the construction hours on Main Street and the decibel levels would be within city ordinance requirements. Mr. Burich added that the noise ordinance is enforced by the Health Department however no staff is present from that department to answer questions on the acceptable decibel levels for the city. Mr. Rabitz commented that it was similar to any other construction equipment and that they were working with representatives from Jeld -Wen on the clean up of their site as well. Plan Commission Minutes April 6, 2010 Mr. Nollenberger questioned where this activity would take place if approval was not granted to do the work on the proposed site. Mr. Rabitz replied that they would have to find an alternative location if this site was not approved. Mr. Monte inquired about the height of the fence enclosing the area. Mr. Buck responded that the fence was six feet tall. Mr. Monte then inquired if the screening of the work area would be a visual obstruction for motorists at the intersection of 6 th Avenue and Oregon Street. Mr. Buck replied that it should not be an issue as it is a controlled intersection and in addition, it is no different from C -3 Zoning District standards for other uses as this district has no required setbacks from the property line. If there were concerns with visual obstruction issues, the corner could be clipped and move the fence in to accommodate said concerns. Mr. Borsuk asked if the petitioner had any problems with the screening of the site. Mr. Rabitz responded they did not and passed around a sample of the material to be used for screening purposes. Mr. Fojtik commented that the screening should help with both noise and dust issues from the work site. Mr. Rabitz also commented that the operation would be sporadic and not continuous during the temporary period allowed. Mr. Thorns questioned what hours of operation were allowed for construction projects by city ordinance. Mr. Gohde replied that limits for noise under city ordinance are 7:00 am until 10:00 pm and 85 decibels are within the range for construction activity and that decibel readings are taken at the property line. Mr. Thorns then questioned if this operation was temporary, why was there no condition addressing the duration of the project. Mr. Buck responded that there may be issues with construction projects and although it is planned to continue only through September, delays may occur due to weather. He further commented that the project would precipitate the cleanup of this site on the river front as the petitioner would be removing the concrete from the site, adding topsoil and seeding the area when the operation is complete. Mr. Thorns also inquired about the distance from the site to the residential properties on 6 th Avenue and the planned hours of operation on the site. Mr. Buck responded that he believed it was about 60 feet. Mr. Rabitz added that the hours of operation would be from 7:00 am until 5:00 pm. Plan Commission Minutes 10 April 6, 2010 Mr. McHugh stated that he had received complaints regarding noise from Oshkosh Corporation vehicles parked on the site. Mr. Burich responded that the storage of Oshkosh Corporation vehicles was on the other end of this parcel. Mr. Monte commented that the vehicles produced at Oshkosh Corporation exceed the 85 decibels of the city noise ordinance. Mr. McHugh questioned if there were no alternate sites on Main Street where this operation could be located and voiced his concern with the noise ordinance issues and if it could be controlled. Mr. Bowen commented that the company would be required to comply with ordinance standards. Mr. Fojtik stated that this operation has to be done somewhere and sometime and it is a good reuse of materials and obviously there was not a better location found for the project. Mr. Thorns commented that he had concerns regarding the noise issue and questioned if residents in the area were notified of today's meeting as no one appeared to be present to discuss the matter. He felt that a more appropriate location would be east of Main Street along the river. Mr. McHugh inquired if meeting notices were sent out on this project. Mr. Buck responded that notices were sent to adjacent property owners. Motion by Borsuk to approve the conditional use permit and planned development for a temporary concrete crushing operation at 421 Oregon Street as requested with the following conditions: 1) Access on Oregon Street is limited to right -in right -out movements only. 2) The subject area is screened from view from Oregon Street and West 6th Avenue. 3) Stored material is not placed on any utility access point. 4) The use is discontinued at the end of the Main Street reconstruction and the subject area improvements are removed, topsoil is added, and the area seeded and mulched. Seconded by Bowen. Motion carried 9 -0. V. JACKSON HEIGHTS ANNEXATION The petitioner is proposing a direct annexation (by unanimous approval) of approximately 0.57 acres of land currently located in the Town of Oshkosh. Mr. Nau presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area, the current zoning, and the existing land uses in the area. He commented that the annexation request was proposed with a R -1 Single Family Residence District zoning classification and was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Propp inquired about the purpose of annexing two small lots on Norton Avenue and questioned if it would be for street construction from the undeveloped plat to the north. Plan Commission Minutes 11 April 6, 2010 Mr. Burich responded that there currently was no access from this plat at this point in time and the annexation request could be an avenue for future street access however that would require future approval of a revised plat. Mr. Thorns questioned if these were the only two parcels on the block being annexed into the city, who will provide utilities for these properties. Mr. Nau replied that the developer would be required to cover the costs for city water and sewer services. Mr. Thorns then questioned the viability of providing city services for one site. Mr. Nau responded that the preliminary plat for the property to the north which is under the same ownership would be revised and the lots would be incorporated into the plat. Mr. McHugh commented that it appeared to be a stepping stone to the multi - family housing proposed to be developed in the Bristol Square plat to the north as the plat needs access to Jackson Street. Mr. Burich stated that this request could provide an avenue for the developer to come back with a plan to provide access to the plat to the north but as of this date, no revised plans for the plat have been submitted. Mr. Thorns inquired if this annexation would pave the way for annexation of the rest of the area. Mr. Burich responded negatively. Mr. Nau added that annexations into the city of single lots were not uncommon as it was done at the owner's request. Mr. Burich directed the Commission member's attention to the map on the wall showing the areas of the city and townships and the scattered sites that were part of the city. He commented that to develop the property to the north of this area which is in the city, this annexed area could potentially become road access that is necessary. Mr. Monte commented that if the parcels are annexed into the city, we have no idea what will happen to this site in the future. Joe Souza, 330 Norton Avenue, stated that the first two lots built on this street were created on and lot and a half and he had discussed the issue with Tom Rusch. The town would close off access to Jackson Street from Norton Avenue as the state regulates the number of accesses to Jackson Street so an access would not be allowed from the Bristol Square plat as it is too close to Norton Avenue. He thought that they had come to an agreement on the matter and was concerned that traffic would increase extremely on this corner with a road coming through from the plat to the north. He voiced his concerns with the safety of his children. He further stated that Mr. Rusch purchased these lots with a R -1 zoning classification with the intention of putting a street in this location. He stated that he moved out to this area because it was a quiet neighborhood and would not have an issue with a house next door but did not wish to have streets on three sides of his house as it would decrease his property values. He commented that there were accesses available for the property to the north in other areas. Plan Commission Minutes 12 April 6, 2010 Mr. Thorns questioned if the town was willing to close Norton Avenue's access to Jackson Street to allow another access to be created from the Bristol Square plat out to Jackson Street. Terry Gerber, attorney representing the developer, stated that he had participated in a number of meetings with the Town of Oshkosh regarding the need to create an access from the subdivision to the north which previously received conditional approval for the development of the plat. There has been discussion of opening up Western and Nielsen Drives to allow access from the plat out to Jackson Street as the Department of Transportation regulates the proximity of accesses to Jackson Street which is preventing Square Lake Drive from having a direct access to Jackson Street from the subdivision. If the town vacates Nielsen or Western Drive, no second access would be available from the plat and the issue has been debated since the preliminary plat received conditional approval from the city in January of 2008. Residents from the town objected to accesses coming through their neighborhood and an agreement has not been reached. He further discussed the timeline of meetings with the town and stated that it seemed unlikely that an agreeable consensus would result in a resolution to this issue. The developer is not requesting to annex any property that is not in his ownership and he would still be willing to meet with the town to work something out. Thomas Rusch, 3807 State Road 21, stated that he bought the property to the north in the late 80's with the intention of developing it but has always had issues with the town which is preventing him from subdividing the lots and commencing his development of the land. Mr. Gerber stated that he has made numerous attempts to come to an agreement with the town without success and the petition for annexation is a unanimous petition for the lots owned by Mr. Rusch only. He commented that they were still willing to work with the town on this matter however they needed to come to some agreement to be able to develop the acreage to the north of this area which is city property. Mr. Thorns inquired if an agreement could be reached to close off the access from Norton Drive or vacate Nielsen Drive, could the issue be resolved. Mr. Gerber responded affirmatively and reiterated that Mr. Rusch needed the ability to begin the development of his property. Gerald Frey, Town of Oshkosh Chairman, stated that he thought they had come to an agreement with Mr. Rusch to vacate Norton Avenue but nothing was in writing regarding the agreement. He further stated that someone must have dropped the ball as he did not receive any documents on the matter and commented that an alternative route from the plat could be created on County Road Y. He stated that the town was in agreement with closing off the access on Norton Avenue but the attorneys need to get the appropriate documents together to complete the transaction. Ms. Propp inquired if the town was not willing to open up Western Drive to access the property to the north. Mr. Frey responded that it was discussed but there appeared to be a lack of communication. Mr. Erdman stated that when the Jackson Heights area was developed it was assumed that there would be future single family homes to the west and the prison facility was developed instead. The town agreed to provide access to Jackson Street for the plat by vacating Norton Avenue and a secondary access was necessary as well however that could be created by accessing onto County Road Y. Plan Commission Minutes 13 April 6, 2010 Mr. Borsuk commented that the issue at hand was the annexation of the parcels in the request and the designing of the subdivision was not a matter to be discussed at this time. Mr. Fojtik suggested that the item be laid over to a future meeting to give the town and the developer time to get together and work something out regarding the access issue. Mr. Borsuk commented that Mr. Rusch is seeking to devise an alternate plan to protect his investment and questioned how do we facilitate the development? It appears to be in the city's best interest to annex the properties in this request and he felt the item should be acted on now rather than lay the request over to a later meeting. Mr. Gerber stated that now that Mr. Rusch has the ability to create an alterative to his access issues for his plat, maybe the town will be more willing to work with him on the matter and come to some resolution. He further stated that it has not been an easy situation but the development of the subdivision was in the best interest of the city and Mr. Rusch did not desire to wait for another few years to resolve the matter. Donald Bernier, 580 Norton Avenue, stated that the town has offered access to the plat from County Road Y and he did not want all the traffic going through his neighborhood as there were too many children in the area. Mr. Erdman commented that the annexation papers do in indicate that a road would be created there and questioned where the revised plans were for the plat if that was the intention of the developer. He further commented that the annexation would not be objectionable if a house would be constructed on the sites and mentioned that the town could put a cul de sac on both ends of Norton Avenue if they so desired. He also suggested that the secondary access for the plat should be out to County Road Y and not through the neighborhood to the south. Mr. Souza stated that his concerns were with the affects the access from the north would have on the children in the neighborhood as the traffic would be much heavier than the current situation and that he was willing to work with Mr. Rusch to come to an agreement on the matter. He requested that the request be tabled to give them time to work something out. He also commented on the old growth trees that would be lost if a road was constructed through the area in the annexation request. Mr. Rusch stated that he feels for the citizens from the town but that he has been trying to work out an agreement with them since 1992 on this issue and has been unsuccessful thus far in coming to a resolution. Bonnie Gams, 460 Courtland Avenue, commented that Mr. Rusch was aware that there was no access from the area to the north and that the town was not trying to stop his development. They were willing to cooperate and come to an agreement on the matter. Mr. Monte inquired if the annexation request was approved today, if a road could be constructed in the area without coming back before the Plan Commission for approval. Ms. Propp stated that it would not be good planning and she would not support a road in this area. Mr. Bowen commented that the request was for the annexation of property and the road issue was not the matter at hand. He felt that the Commission's obligation was to evaluate this request on its own merit and move the matter forward and let the town work out its own issues with the developer. Plan Commission Minutes 14 April 6, 2010 Mr. Nollenberger stated that he agreed with Mr. Bowen but felt that it may be better to table the request to a later meeting to give the town time to work out the matter with the developer. Mr. Thorns also agreed that the access issues needed to be addressed and tabling the request may be in everyone's best interest and suggested that six weeks might be sufficient. Mr. Borsuk commented that he was not sure if there was a time limit on how long a request could be delayed when tabled. Mr. McHugh stated that we know the intent of the annexation request and what the developer is seeking to achieve by it and a lay over of the item would give the town representatives a timeline to work the matter out. Motion by Bowen to lay over the request for the Jackson Heights II annexation for two meetings. Mr. Thorns questioned if this would allow for sufficient time to work the matter out with the town. Mr. Frey commented that he could contact the attorney in the morning to get an agreement underway. Seconded by Monte. Motion carried 9 -0. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 6:45 pm. (Monte /Thoms) Respectfully submitted, Darryn Burich Director of Planning Services Plan Commission Minutes 15 April 6, 2010