HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes
Plan Commission Minutes 1 December 4, 2007 PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 4, 2007 PRESENT: Ed Bowen, Thomas Fojtik, Paul Esslinger, Kathy Propp, Cathy Scherer, Shirley Mattox, Jon
Dell’Antonia EXCUSED: David Borsuk, Meredith Scheuermann, Paul Lowry, Jeff Thorkildsen STAFF: Darryn Burich, Director of Planning Services; David Buck, Principal Planner; Steve Gohde,
Assistant Director of Public Works; Deborah Foland, Recording Secretary Chairperson Dell’Antonia called the meeting to order at 4:00 pm. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present.
The minutes of November 20, 2007 were approved as presented. (Esslinger/Propp) I.A. THREE-LOT LAND DIVISION/CERTIFIED SURVEY MAP AT 1932 & 1936 MICHIGAN STREET AND ALASKA STREET The
petitioner/owner is requesting approval of a three-lot land division, consisting of two existing lots, each with a single-family dwelling and creating a third vacant lot. Ms. Mattox
questioned why the railroad still has a private easement in this location. Mr. Nau responded that the easement was for fiber optic cable and should not impact the development of the
site. I.B. RELEASE OF RIGHT-OF-WAY EASEMENT/DEDICATE RIGHT-OF-WAY AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF W. NINTH AVENUE AND S. MAIN STREET The Department of Public Works is requesting the release
of a right-of-way easement and dedication of right-of-way at the northwest corner of W. Ninth Avenue and S. Main Street. Ms. Mattox inquired if the dedication was allowing for enough
room on this corner. Mr. Nau replied that the footprint of the right-of-way dedication was identical to the right-of-way easement and should be adequate. Motion by Scherer to move approval
of the consent agenda as requested. Seconded by Bowen. Motion carried 7-0. II. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST TO PERMIT A COMMUNITY CENTER (12 STEP RECOVERY PROGRAM) AT 621 EVANS STREET,
820 AND 824 E. PARKWAY AVENUE The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit (CUP) for establishment of a community center at 621 Evans Street to offer various 12-step recovery
programs seven days per week from approximately
Plan Commission Minutes 2 December 4, 2007 10:00 am to 9:00 pm. It is the petitioner’s desire to offer the building as meeting space for 12 Step Programs. The 12 Step meetings will be
offered in the former school building on the site. The site also contains a small church that will be used for fund raisers/dances 3-4 times per year and a small house formerly used
as a parsonage that will be used for the on-site manager. The meetings will be offered seven days per week and on holidays. Mr. Bowen asked if there was a curb cut on Bowen Street for
this site. Mr. Burich responded that there was. The site has two curb cuts. Mr. Bowen also questioned if the petitioner would have the option of renting out the small house on the site
that was to be used for the on-site manager. Mr. Burich replied that the house could not be rented out unless the petitioner came back to the Plan Commission with an amendment to this
request. Ms. Scherer questioned what defines the meaning of a “community center” and how does this request qualify as such. Mr. Burich responded that a community center is defined as
a building used for recreational, social, educational, and cultural activities, open to the public or a designated part of the public, usually owned and operated by a public or nonprofit
group or agency. Mr. Burich stated that based on this description that the Department felt the request was consistent with and thus moved forward as a CUP. Mr. Dell’Antonia asked if
the building were currently vacant. Mr. Burich replied that there was a church entity operating there some time ago, but he did not know if it was still active. Kornerstone Recovery
has an offer to purchase the site currently, if their request is approved. Beth Fitzhenry, 651 Evans Street, stated that she did not feel that sufficient notice was given to neighbors
regarding this request and that not enough neighbors were informed as this would effect the entire neighborhood. She did not personally get a meeting notice regarding this request, but
noticed a sign posted on the property and called to request a copy of the staff report. The petition pending sign first went up on November 27th, and she did not get a copy of the staff
report until November 30th. She further stated that the petition was too vague and did not provide enough information about the Kornerstone Recovery Club or its officers and volunteers,
background history on their operations at their current Oregon Street location, daily load and current hours of operation, and programs offered. She also felt that the hours proposed
for this location were beyond what was acceptable for the neighborhood and felt that it did not fit the character of their neighborhood. She commented that she felt the item should be
tabled or at least have the hours of operation scaled back. Mr. Esslinger asked if Ms. Fitzhenry was in support of this request. Ms. Fitzhenry responded that she felt that more information
was necessary before she could make that determination. Mr. Burich commented that the notification given was in keeping with current City policy and that meeting notices are sent to
all adjacent property owners approximately two weeks prior to the Plan Commission meeting and the petition pending sign is required to be posted on the subject site one week
Plan Commission Minutes 3 December 4, 2007 prior to the meeting. Mr. Burich also noted that property owners, not individual tenants, are provided notices as those are listed on the City’s
GIS system. Sara Anderson, 627 Evans Street, stated that she was concerned with comments in the staff report regarding the current location of the Recovery Club as it refers to this
location as being in a residential area and adjacent to a school. She wished to clarify that the current location is zoned C-3 and that the school playground is located in between the
Recovery Club and the school itself. She further stated that the current facility is not used in the same capacity as this proposed location as she has driven by it on numerous occasions
and the open sign is not displayed very often. She also commented that she did not feel that this use should fall under a definition of a community center as the definition of a club
better defines it use and purpose. She also stated that one of the standards for approval of a conditional use permit is that it will not have a negative effect on neighboring properties.
She feels that the Recovery Club could draw participants that could be harmful to the neighborhood and a danger to the community. The windows of the school where the meetings are to
be held face her home and she feels that it could be endangering her family. They are trying to improve the quality of the neighborhood and this use will not be harmonious. Mr. Esslinger
questioned if she was in favor of this request. Ms. Anderson stated that she was not in favor of the use and felt that more information was needed. She would like to know if the programs
are opened or closed and would also like to know if the church structure would be made available for rental use. Ken Ruehl, 3110 Bailey Court, President of the Kornerstone Recovery Club,
distributed a hand out outlining their activities and programs. The Club currently offers programs for only AA, NA, Al-Anon, and Alateen and operates with the help of volunteers 50-60
hours per week with about 10 meetings lasting 1-1 ½ hours each. Attendance at these meetings is approximately 4-20 people, which include professional and laypersons alike. He further
stated that 80% of their meetings are held as closed sessions to protect the identity of their clients with the remaining 20% held as open meetings. Mr. Dell’Antonia asked if they would
continue their operations on Oregon Street if they acquire the proposed new site. Mr. Ruehl stated that they would not as they are currently renting the site on Oregon Street, which
has its drawbacks. Charitable donations develop with ownership so they would be combining all their meeting groups into the new facility. Ms. Scherer questioned if their operating hours
were always from 10:00 am to 9:00 pm. Mr. Ruehl replied yes, but they usually are open about six hours a day. Ms. Scherer asked if the Club would consider reducing their hours since
they would be located in a residential neighborhood. Mr. Ruehl responded that the Club may be closed between 2:2:00 pm to 5:00 pm, but evening meetings are more popular because a lot
of the clients work during the day. Ms. Scherer inquired about the other programs mentioned in the staff report.
Plan Commission Minutes 4 December 4, 2007 Mr. Ruehl replied that most recovering persons have more than one addiction at one time and that they do not currently offer any other programs
other than the ones previously mentioned, but more programs may potentially develop. Mr. Esslinger questioned what Al-Anon and Alateen programs are. Mr. Ruehl responded that Alateen
is for young people who are not addicted, but live in a household that involves an addict of some nature and gives them the opportunity to share their experiences with others. Al-Anon
is for persons who live with an alcoholic or drug addict, such as a spouse or other family member. Mr. Dell’Antonia inquired if the church facilities would be available for community
use. Mr. Ruehl replied that the intent was to use the buildings for their purposes, which would include fundraisers 3-4 times per year. Ms. Mattox asked if neighbors could potentially
use the church facility. Mr. Ruehl responded that they would be open to any neighborhood interaction. Mr. Fojtik questioned if there was a reason that they did not talk to the neighbors
in advance regarding their proposal. Mr. Ruehl replied that they did not set up a meeting with neighbors regarding the issue as they did not own the buildings yet. Mr. Fojtik also questioned
how long this organization has been in existence. Jerry Doemel, 1706 Doty Street, responded that they have been in business since 1990 and he has been with the organization for 15 years.
They originally started the club on Market Street and Algoma Boulevard, then moved to a location on Main Street, then a location on 10th Avenue and Oregon, and are currently at the site
on 17th Avenue and Oregon Street. They are looking for a location with additional rooms as the number of people participating in their programs is currently 20-30, but the recovery population
is continuing to grow. He further stated that they have never had a situation with their participants at any previous location and found this location desirable as it could provide meeting
space for all recovery groups. He commented that they are attempting to educate the community and that it was a people-helping-people arrangement. He also commented that they have a
letter of endorsement from the Boys & Girls Club. Ms. Mattox inquired if they were a non-profit entity. Mr. Doemel replied yes, they were classified as a C01C3. Ms. Mattox asked if they
had professionally trained staff. Mr. Doemel responded that their staff was not professionals, but as earlier stated, an atmosphere of people helping people. They fill the gap between
professional help and total recovery. Ms. Propp commented that she was very sympathetic with the need for these services, but felt that a part-time professional staff member may provide
comfort to the concerned neighbors. She questioned if fund raising dollars had been secured.
Plan Commission Minutes 5 December 4, 2007 Mr. Doemel replied that about 80% of the necessary funds had been secured between their project account and their endowment fund. He further
stated that they are looking at adding on a paid position to live at the facility and act as the on-site manager. This party could be the contact person for neighbors with concerns.
Ms. Propp questioned if they have had previous issues with neighbors at any of their other locations. Mr. Doemel responded that they have had police remove a participant if the person
comes to a meeting intoxicated, but it did not involve neighbors. Ms. Propp asked if AA meetings were held at other locations. Mr. Doemel replied yes, but they had a fire in the building
and needed to find a new location. They could continue to meet at another location or join the Recovery Club if this new location was approved. Polly Briley, 1249 Merritt Avenue, commented
that she was speaking as an advocate for the church building on site, which was constructed in 1840 and a very unique structure. She felt that the church building should be protected,
which currently is in need of a new roof as well as other repairs. Her concern was that a nonprofit organization would not have the necessary funds to support the repair expense and
that the party acquiring ownership should have sufficient revenue to fund the necessary repairs. She further stated that she is also an advocate for the neighbors as she feels that this
is a transitioning neighborhood where ownership is returning and does not need more turnovers. The neighborhood needs stability and the addition of this club to the area would affect
property values. Ms. Anderson stated that based on the information heard today, she feels that this organization should be classified as a club, not a community center, and she is not
in support of this use. Ms. Fitzhenry commented that she is still not comfortable with this proposal and still feels the rest of the neighborhood needs more information. Victor Mitchell,
633 Evans Street, commented that he agrees with Ms. Anderson and Ms. Fitzhenry in that he is not comfortable with this facility in their neighborhood. Darrin Anderson, 627 Evans Street,
commented that he did not approve of the fact that this club has no licensed person on the staff and that the persons working there had no professional credentials. He further commented
that he was concerned that the approval of this use would open up zoning in their neighborhood and bring in other types of uses. He also stated that he was not comfortable with the condition
that any expansion or major modification would require further approval, as it does not specify what would be considered as a major modification. Ms. Scherer asked if blinds would be
installed on the windows to ensure privacy to both the participants and the neighboring property since the school building is in such close proximity to the adjacent home. Mr. Ruehl
responded that window treatments would be installed as they wish to maintain privacy for their clients as well as the neighbor. Mr. Fojtik questioned what happens to this proposal if
voted down today. Mr. Burich replied that the request would still be forwarded to the City Council with the Plan Commission’s recommendation to deny it.
Plan Commission Minutes 6 December 4, 2007 Ms. Scherer inquired if the church was listed as a historic site. Mr. Burich responded that the structure was not eligible to his knowledge.
Mr. Fojtik asked what the zoning classification was for the club’s current location. Mr. Burich replied that the current site on Oregon Street was zoned C-3. Ms. Mattox commented that
she felt the neighborhood element was an important factor to consider and that the petitioners should have arranged a neighborhood meeting to discuss this proposal prior to it coming
to the Plan Commission for approval. She further commented that a historic site should be maintained and preserved. Mr. Dell’Antonia suggested that the item could be laid over until
a neighborhood meeting was held, but it was his understanding that the pending real estate closing was scheduled for later this month. Mr. Fojtik stated that he felt this club served
a valuable purpose, but he did understand the neighbors concerns. Mr. Burich commented that items can be laid over to obtain further information for the Commission, but not specifically
for a neighborhood meeting and that would have to be done voluntarily by the petitioner. He asked the real estate broker if the closing could be postponed to enable the petitioners to
hold such a meeting. Kathy Lennon, real estate broker for the property, stated that the offer to purchase would be null and void if the item was to be laid over to a later meeting. Mr.
Dell’Antonia commented that the Common Council would have the final decision on this request regardless of the Plan Commission recommendation. Mr. Esslinger stated that the request would
not go to the Council for another week which would leave the petitioners time to schedule a neighborhood meeting to discuss the concerns. Motion by Scherer to approve the conditional
use permit to establish a community center for various 12-step recovery programs at 621 Evans as requested with the following conditions: 1) Proposed use shall be in conformance with
the submitted and approved plans. 2) Any expansion or major modification of the approved use shall be approved through separate conditional use permit. 3) The allowable uses include:
a. Former school structure to be used to offer the 12 step meetings seven days per week from approximately 10:00 am to 9:00 pm. b. Former parsonage to be used for housing of the on-site
manager for the site. c. Former church to be used as a fellowship hall and used 3-4 times per year for fund raisers/dances. 4) The separate tax parcels are to be combined in one tax
parcel for the entire development. Seconded by Fojtik. Motion denied 3-4. Ayes-Fojtik/Scherer/Mattox. Nay-Bowen/Essliinger/Propp/Dell’Antonia.
Plan Commission Minutes 7 December 4, 2007 III. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A RETAIL AND RESTAURANT FACILITY WITH DRIVETHROUGH AT 2231 WESTOWNE
AVENUE The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit/development plan approval for redevelopment of the subject site to include a retail and restaurant facility with drive-through.
Mr. Esslinger questioned how far the existing drive access was from the intersection. Mr. Buck responded that it was 230-240 feet from the intersection. Mr. Burich added that this distance
exceeds the ordinance requirements. Mr. Esslinger asked what restaurant would be occupying the facility. Mr. Buck replied that he did not know. Ms. Scherer inquired about why the conditions
did not include landscaping and signage requirements. Mr. Buck responded that the landscaping and signage requirements are by code and therefore would be a natural condition and did
not need to be noted specifically. Mr. Burich added that the petitioner would need to submit landscape plans for approval prior to permits being issued and as this is a commercially
zoned area, the standard ordinance regulations would mandate the landscaping and signage requirements. Mr. Dell’Antonia asked if the structure currently on site would be demolished.
Mr. Buck replied that it would. Ms. Mattox questioned the reasoning for the double drive accesses on the site. Mr. Buck responded that it is a small site, and with the required setbacks
and the angle parking, it could be for traffic circulations purposes or it possibly was just a personal preference. Peter Jungbacker, 1215 Bayshore Drive, representing the petitioner,
stated that it was an unusually shaped property and that they we’re trying to convert it into a more high-traffic commercial property. Ms. Propp asked if he had any issues with the conditions
applied to the request. Mr. Jungbacker replied no. Mr. Esslinger inquired as to what restaurant would be occupying the structure. Mr. Jungbacker responded that the restaurant would would
be a Cousins Sub establishment. This would not replace the existing Cousins Sub establishment, but would be an additional facility. Ms. Scherer commented that she felt this was a very
nice development and should be a good addition to the neighborhood.
Plan Commission Minutes 8 December 4, 2007 Motion by Scherer to approve the conditional use permit/development plan for a retail and restaurant facility with drive-through at 2231 Westowne
Avenue as requested with the following conditions: 1) Base standard modification to allow a 24-stall parking lot. 2) Access to the site is adjusted to either a single full access drive
or the two one-way drives be reduced to twelve feet in width and appropriately identified as one-way. 3) Whole panel replacement for any right-of-way pavement removal. 4) Cross access
easements are established prior to construction of internal drives to the west or east. Seconded by Mattox. Motion carried 6-0-1. Ayes-Fojtik/Esslinger/Propp/Scherer/Mattox/Dell’Antonia.
Abstained-Bowen (the developer for this item is his employer). IV. TWO LOT LAND DIVISION/CERTIFIED SURVEY MAP AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW TO SPLIT THE LOT AND
SEPARATE TWO BUSINESSES AT 3596 STEARNS DRIVE The applicant is requesting a two-lot land division, which is a reconfiguration of a single existing parcel totaling approximately 6.77
acres of land as follows: Lot 1 -2.23 acres Lot 2 – 4.54 acres The applicant is also requesting an amendment to previously issued conditional use permits/development plans to allow
the land division and to receive base standard modifications to the rear (south) and side (west) yard setbacks of Lot 1. Mr. Bowen inquired about the comments in the staff report relating
to the discrepancies in the location of detention and drainage easements as approved in the previous CUP/PD. He questioned if this was the only situation under which we review the location
of detention ponds and what mechanism the City has to ensure that the petitioner complies with conditions that have been applied to a request. Mr. Buck responded that a site plan review
is completed prior to permits being issued and most discrepancies can be corrected with a phone call, and if not, sometimes citations will be issued. Mr. Dell’Antonia commented that
if if conditions are applied to a request, staff should be enforcing these conditions to ensure that the site is constructed as approved. Steve Gohde, Assistant Director of Public Works,
replied that visual inspections are completed, but the City does not have sufficient staff to go out and survey every site to ensure it is constructed appropriately. He further stated
that developer’s agreements on the creation of plats now require a post construction survey being completed to ensure compliance, but this is not a requirement on all other sites at
this time. Ms. Scherer inquired if a completion of a post construction survey could be added as a condition to this request. Mr. Burich responded that it could. Ms. Propp asked if the
currently construction detention pond was inadequate.
Plan Commission Minutes 9 December 4, 2007 Mr. Gohde replied that he was not sure as they do not have the elevation grades necessary and that the pond may have the appropriate capacity
as constructed. The site was completed with more paved area than the approved site plan. Ms. Propp questioned if a new stormwater, drainage and grading plan would have to be approved.
Mr. Gohde responded yes and spot checks could be performed during construction. Ms. Mattox commented that she thought staff with technical backgrounds were monitoring these issues. Mr.
Burich stated that the City does not have sufficient staff to complete a recertification process on every development to ensure compliance with conditions. Dan Dowling, 5580 Highway
116, Winneconne, stated that he had developed 120,000 square feet of taxable parcels in the city and he did not appreciate hearing that his development was not constructed properly.
He does whatever is required by City ordinances and if things are not right he does whatever necessary to make it right. Ms. Propp questioned if he had any issues with the conditions
applied to his request. Mr. Dowling responded no. He further stated that everything is exactly the same as before and the only thing he is trying to do is separate the businesses onto
two separate tax parcels so each business can pay their fair share of taxes and in case he would decide to sell one parcel down the road. He felt that the City is just making things
difficult for him. Mr. Buck stated that the land division brings up setback issues, and since these divisions are reviewed by other City departments during the process, that was what
triggered the questions on the drainage and detention area. Motion by Scherer to add a condition that the petitioner has a post construction certified survey completed to ensure that
conditions are met. Mr. Esslinger questioned if this was something that the City would complete or if it would be the responsibility of the owner. Mr. Burich replied that this would
be the responsibility of the property owner. Mr. Esslinger commented that if the owner does not construct a site conforming to regulations and conditions, they should be fined, but he
felt that the City could run into legal issues by requiring this petitioner to be held to higher standards than any other developer. Mr. Burich stated that the Department of PublicWorks
would like to have the ordinance amended to allow for these post construction surveys on all developments, but it has not been amended at this time. Mr. Esslinger commented that he was
not comfortable with applying this condition to the request until such a time that the Council would approve an amendment to the ordinance to require this on all developments. Mr. Bowen
agreed that it would be unfair to apply this condition to this request if other developments are not required to be held to the same standard.
Plan Commission Minutes 10 December 4, 2007 Motion seconded by Mattox. Motion denied 2-5. Ayes-Scherer/Mattox. Nays-Bowen/Fojtik/Esslinger/Propp/Dell’Antonia. Motion by Esslinger to
approve the two lot land division/certified survey map and conditional use permit/development plan to split the lot to create to separate businesses at 3596 Stearns Drive as requested
with the following conditions: 1. Depiction of all existing utility easements on CSM. 2. Drainage easement identified on the proposed CSM includes the word “detention”. 3. Clarification
and possible correction on the location of detention and drainage easement as they relate to property lines, as approved by the Department of Public Works. 4. Maintenance agreements
between the two lots are established for the detention and drainage easement. 5. Acquisition of a building permit for parking lot previously constructed on proposed Lot 1. 6. Base standard
modification to allow a zero (0) foot west side yard setback and to allow a twenty (20) foot south side rear yard setback. 7. A new stormwater, drainage and grading plan be reviewed
and approved by the Department of Public Works. Seconded by Mattox. Motion carried 7-0. V. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF A RECREATIONAL VEHICLE
(RV) PARK AND CAMP STORE AT 3911 S. WASHBURN STREET (ADJACENT TO THE FORD FESTIVAL PARK SITE) This is a request for approval of a CUP/PD to establish a recreational vehicle (RV) park
and camp store on property adjacent to the Ford Festival Park at the southwest corner of W. Ripple Avenue and S. Washburn Street. The CUP/PD approval is required because of the M-1PD
zoning designation and necessary base standard modifications to the Highway 41 Overlay District requirements. Mr. Dell’Antonia asked what the definition of a recreational vehicle was.
Mr. Burich replied that the State of Wisconsin has classifications for what defines a recreational vehicle and added that this site would also include an area designated for tent camping.
Mr. Fojtik questioned the remarks in the staff report about eliminating the sanitary sewage unloading area on the site plan and how this function operates. Mr. Gohde responded that the
State has designed specific criteria for regulating dumping stations, which include sloping in certain directions and capping of the site if it is not occupied or monitored. Currently,
the Department of Public Works has no provisions to monitor sewage flow to the sanitary sewer or to prevent clean water infiltration to treatment facilities. The City’s treatment plant
has a dumping station available for use on site that can be utilized for this service. Mr. Bowen questioned the size of allowable ground signage for this site. Mr. Buck responded that
ordinance would allow a ground sign of 1,600 square feet and a maximum height of 60 feet, but the petitioners have not submitted any signage for approval at this time for the site.
Plan Commission Minutes 11 December 4, 2007 Marty Schibbelhut, 1077 Meadow Lane, Fond du Lac, representing the applicant, distributed handouts further detailing their plans for the site.
He stated that they purchased the site
on September 14th and the area was an eyesore at the time. Since their purchase of the site, the garbage and debris has been cleaned up, dead trees removed, the lawn mowed, and the building
cleaned out. They are looking to create a short-term destination location for out of town visitors attending festivals, etc. and this would be the only RV park of its kind in the area.
It would turn this site into a usable parcel. Mr. Dell’Antonia questioned if the applicant had any issues with the conditions applied to their request including the one limiting stays
to 14 days. Mr. Schibbelhut replied they did not have any problems with the conditions and that they were not looking for long term stays on the site. Most people traveling in RV’s stay
approximately 3-5 days in one area before moving on. Ms. Propp commented that the site plan was not very appealing and asked if they were the same party who operated the temporary showers
at this location last year during Country USA. Mr. Schibbelhut responded that a separate company operated the temporary showers. Ms. Propp asked if they would be returning for the Country
USA festival this year and if so, where the showers would be located. Mr. Schibbelhut replied that the showers would probably be located in the northeast corner of the redeveloped site.
He further stated that their intent with the landscaping was to both make the site the most appealing looking from the road and also provide a buffer to shield the camper’s view of the
road. Mr. Burich commented that the temporary showers were approved with a two or three year condition, and at this time we only have last summer’s experience with the operation, but
to his knowledge, there were no complaints about the site. Ms. Propp asked if water and electric hookup would be on-site and how it will be addressed. Mr. Schibbelhut replied that the
water and electric hookups will be offered on site in the RV parking area and although the costs associated with properly constructing a capped dumping station could not be done initially,
it was a feature they would like to add when affordable. Ms. Mattox asked if the business had other properties that they developed similar to this one. Mr. Schibbelhut replied no. Mr.
Mattox also questioned if they had architect’s drawings for renovations to the building. Mr. Schibbelhut responded that they were planning on some minor modifications but no structural
work was planned. Some painting, soffit replacement, removing mechanical equipment from the roof and cleaning was planned. They also planned on installing fencing mechanisms on the northeast
drive and the back driveway for security purposes. Mr. Dell’Antonia asked what the months of operation were going to be.
Plan Commission Minutes 12 December 4, 2007 Mr. Schibbelhut replied that they were looking to operate from April to October. He further stated that today’s recreational vehicles were
equipped with all the modern comforts of home and this park would provide a site that is not available anywhere between Milwaukee and Green Bay. Jason Day, Excel Engineering, representing
the applicant, stated that the dumping station is an issue that they would like to sit down with staff from Public Works to attempt to work out a system to provide this service on-site.
He further stated that he had spoke with James Rabe from Public Works in regard to the stormwater, grading and drainage plans and since they are reducing the amount of impervious surface
on the site, they may be exempt from having to provide a stormwater management plan. They would still be required to provide an erosion control plan. He displayed their site plan and
went over some of the landscaping and other features to be included with their development plans. Ms. Propp asked where on the site plan the temporary showers were located last year.
Mr. Day pointed out on the site plan where they were located last year and explained that the tractortrailer retrofitted with the temporary shower facilities was about the same size
as the building and could be parked behind the building this year. Ms. Mattox asked if the city has any other RV parks. Mr. Buck responded not that he was aware of. Motion by Scherer
to approve the conditional use permit/development plan for the establishment of a recreational vehicle park and camp store at 3911 S. Washburn Street as requested with the following
conditions: 1) Maximum length of stay is 14 days. 2) Remove additional asphalt at the northeast corner of the site to meet the 25-foot setback along West Ripple Avenue and the greatest
setback along South Washburn Street. 3) Increase setback along South Washburn Street to 5 feet and provide a base standard modification to allow said 5-foot setback. 4) Remove asphalt
on southern drive aisle that encroaches into setback. 5) Eliminate the sanitary waste dump station or receive approval from the Department of Public Works. 6) Reduce western drive on
West Ripple Avenue to a standard Class II Drive. 7) Adjust placement of the eastern drive to West Ripple Avenue to line up with the western drive aisle. Reduce eastern drive to a standard
Class II driveway width and permit the driveway 140 feet from the intersection. 8) Eliminate the northern drive on South Washburn Street. 9) Adjust southern drive on South Washburn Street
to have one 12-foot ingress lane, a 4-foot painted median and two 10-foot egress lanes and provide a base standard modification to allow the drive to be 36 feet wide. 10) Provide an
internal access drive from the parking lot on the east of the store to the parking lot on the west of the store. 11) The center RV parking drive aisle must be designed to support fire
apparatus. 12) Add a drive lane to the north of the RV parking area and south of the camper/tent area unless camper use is eliminated 13) Intensify landscaping (trees and shrubs) along
the two street right-of-ways. 14) Building remodeling must meet design standards of the Highway 41 Corridor Overlay District 15) Grading, drainage and stormwater plan must be reviewed
and approved by the Dept. of Public Works.
Plan Commission Minutes 13 December 4, 2007 Seconded by Esslinger. Motion carried 7-0. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 6:50 pm. (Esslinger/Propp)
Respectfully submitted, Darryn Burich Director of Planning Services