HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes
Plan Commission Minutes 1 May 17, 2007 PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 17, 2007 PRESENT: Ed Bowen, Thomas Fojtik, Paul Lowry, Paul Esslinger, John Weinsheim, Jon Dell’Antonia EXCUSED: David
Borsuk, Eduardo Corpus, Kathleen Propp, Cathy Scherer, Jeff Thorkildsen STAFF: Darryn Burich, Director of Planning Services; Deborah Foland, Recording Secretary Chairman Dell’Antonia
called the meeting to order at 4:00 pm. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. The minutes of May 1, 2007 were approved as presented. I. FINAL PLAT – OMNI BUSINESS PARK The
petitioner is proposing a 6-lot Final Plat identified as “Omni Business Park” for property generally located on Fountain Avenue, between State Trunk Highway 41 on the east and State
Trunk Highway 45 on the west. There was no discussion on this item. Motion by Bowen to move approval of the final plat as requested with the following conditions: 1. Developer’s agreement,
including stormwater detention maintenance, is approved by the Department of Public Works. 2. Changes to the verbiage and labeling of easements are approved by the Department of Public
Works. 3. Access Restriction to Fountain Avenue is placed on Lot 1. 4. Grading and drainage plans are approved by the Department of Public Works prior to Final Plat approval. Seconded
by Weinsheim. Motion carried 6-0. II. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL AND VARIANCE TO BUSINESS PARK COVENANTS FOR A NEW DAYCARE CENTER (CHIEMSEE CASTLE) LOCATED WEST OF 4041 STATE ROAD
91 CUP approval: Operation of a daycare center with approximately 22 employees and 110 children on a manufacturing zoned parcel located on property considered part of the City’s Universal
Business Park. The petitioner is required to obtain a CUP because daycare centers are permitted only through CUP in manufacturing districts. Covenant Variance: The petitioner is requesting
two variances to the “Covenants and Restrictions” of the Universal Business Park.
Plan Commission Minutes 2 May 17, 2007 Mr. Esslinger asked if the City has allowed other developments in the park to deviate from the standards for construction materials. He also inquired
about how many parcels we have dealt with in the area. Mr. Burich replied that he had not personally dealt with any construction standard variances. Mr. Esslinger stated that he felt
that this parcel was highly visible in this area and he hesitated to allow any deviation from the covenants in the park as it was meant for manufacturing uses only. Mr. Burich responded
that the site was not their first choice as far as parcels, but since the County had rewritten the airport overlay zone, it prevents the daycare center from relocating to some of their
other choices to the north. Mr. Bowen inquired where the access to this parcel would be located. Mr. Burich replied that there will be a new common access drive constructed that will
eliminate the current point of access. Sid Hershberg, realtor, stated that he wanted to thank the Plan Commission for the consideration of holding a special meeting to accommodate their
request. The petitioner needs to relocate their current daycare center as it now is located in an area that is part of the revised air zone overlay. They have been working with Chamco
on finding a suitable site and they made an offer on this parcel as they felt it would enable them to improve their business as they would be able to service the industrial park employees
working in this area. Mr. Dell’Antonia asked if he could address the variance request for the building materials for the new building. William Aubrey, architect for the project, stated
that they did not want to use the split faced block that is required in the business park as it is a rough surface that could be a danger to the children on site and would also hinder
the daycare center from possibly expanding the building to the south in the future. Mr. Bowen inquired about the color scheme for the building. Mr. Aubrey responded that it would most
likely be earth tones. Mr. Bowen commented that he would not be comfortable approving a building that will not blend aesthetically with the area. He also stated that split faced block
was available with a smooth texture surface and this would allow the building to still conform to the business park requirements. Mr. Aubrey commented that the standard block has no
aesthetic value and is a more expensive building material. The colors and appearance could be subject to approval by staff and the landscaping, fencing, and playground would hinder the
visibility of this elevation anyway. Mr. Bowen commented that the business park requirements were created for a reason and he did not want to waive them without a compelling reason.
Phil Baeten, co-owner of one of the condo units adjacent to the subject parcel, stated that he did not necessarily have an objection to the use, however he did object to the material
variance for the building. He further stated that covenants have already been relaxed in the subject area and that they had to follow the regular business park standards on their building.
He was concerned that if the daycare center use
Plan Commission Minutes 3 May 17, 2007 would be discontinued, the siding on the building would still remain. He also commented that they did not have an objection to the variance for
the fence. Mr. Weinsheim asked if they would have an objection to another type of building material other than what was proposed. Mr. Baeten replied that he would like the petitioners
to conform to the business park standards. Reinhard Roehlig, 152 Overland Trail, stated that he also owns adjacent property to the subject site that he purchased 11 years ago under the
impression that the business park covenants would be enforced. He based his decision to purchase the site on the fact that it was an area that would be for professional use only and
he assumed that the surrounding parcels would have to conform to the covenant requirements for the area. He distributed copies of the parcels in the area, the current buildings on site,
and the proposed development to the board. He does not see this parcel as being remote from the main park as the staff report stated. He sympathizes with the amount of time spent on
developing the plans for this site but does not want a playground right outside of their office windows. In order to protect his investment he feels that some type of buffer should be
created between the other office buildings and the proposed daycare center. Mr. Dell’Antonia asked if he was opposed to the construction of the daycare center entirely. Mr. Roehlig responded
that he was opposed to both the requested variances and the proposed use. He feels the need to maintain the integrity of the business area and he feels that the noise, toys, etc. would
be a detriment to future renting of office space on their site. Mr. Weinsheim inquired if he felt that additional landscaping could offset the issues. Mr. Roehlig responded that possibly
the playground could be relocated to the other side of the building with a berm between the properties. Norm Packer, business partner of Reinhard Roehlig, stated that he agreed with
Mr. Roehlig’s presentation and he did not see the proposed daycare center as harmonious with the other uses in the business park and did not feel the building would aesthetically blend
with the other buildings on site. Mr. Dell’Antonia asked if relocating the playground would be a sufficient compromise to the proposed use of the site. Mr. Packer responded that it would
not and that he felt that moving it across the road would be more acceptable. Rob Kleman, OAEDC, 120 Jackson Street, commented that the Universal Business Park Committee reviewed this
request from a use standpoint discussing both the advantages and disadvantages and concluded that this use was appropriate for the area. The building and other site issues could be worked
out and they would like to try to minimize concerns of the adjacent property owners. Mr. Fojtik asked if there was some type of compromise that would satisfy all involved. Mr. Aubrey
stated that the petitioner is on a tight schedule because their current business had to be relocated as soon as possible. He commented that rearranging the site plan to move the playground
would be difficult and involve significant costs but would be easier than moving the entire site across the road. They could possibly add additional screening and landscaping to mitigate
the use and masonry
Plan Commission Minutes 4 May 17, 2007 could be added to the south elevation to meet park requirements. They could also move the building over some if that would help obtain approval.
Mr. Esslinger asked if there weren’t other properties in the area that this daycare center could be located on. Mr. Kleman responded that they looked at four or five other locations
in the past months but most of them would not work out. This site was favorable as it was not in the airport overlay zone. Chamco also worked with them on this project and could not
come up with a more suitable site either. Mr. Esslinger asked why the daycare center had to be located in this area. Mr. Kleman replied that the petitioners felt that this location would
be beneficial to their business as a lot of employees work in the industrial park area. Mr. Esslinger suggested that one of the businesses in the area could add a daycare center to their
facility and the Gabavics could operate it rather than build a complete new site for it. Mr. Aubrey replied that was not an acceptable compromise as they run an independent business
and do not have a sufficient timeline to negotiate with another business for their relocation. Mr. Esslinger responded that the petitioner’s timeline is not an issue for the board to
consider. Mr. Dell’Antonia added that the board’s responsibility lies in determining appropriate zoning, etc. only for requests before the Plan Commission. Mr. Dell’Antonia read and
distributed copies to the rest of the board members of an e-mail from David Borsuk in regard to his objections to this proposal as he could not be present for the meeting today. Motion
by Bowen to reposition the building from the east side of the property line to the west side of the property line with a significant berm and landscaping to mitigate the use from adjacent
property owners. Seconded by Fojtik. Motion carried 5-1. Ayes-Bowen/Fojtik/Lowry/Weinsheim/Dell’Antonia. Nays-Esslinger. Mr. Bowen remarked that he still had hesitations regarding granting
a variance for for the south elevation wall. Mr. Lowry agreed and commented that he did not feel a variance should be granted to allow the use of other than the required materials for
the reason of ease of future expansion of the business. Mr. Weinsheim concurred and stated that he felt we needed to maintain consistency for the rest of the owners in the park. Motion
by Weinsheim to remove the building and materials design variance to permit the south elevation of the structure to be constructed or clad primarily in brick or masonry. Seconded by
Bowen. Motion carried 6-0. Mr. Fojtik commented that he felt there needs to be clarity for what is considered appropriate use for business park standards. A brief discussion followed
by the board members regarding the use of a daycare center in this area. Mr. Esslinger inquired if the petitioners found the changes to their proposal acceptable. Mr. Hershberg stated
that he felt the drainage of the site with the movement of the building would be a problem. Mr. Aubrey commented that he felt that this was a resolvable issue.
Plan Commission Minutes 5 May 17, 2007 Mr. Packer reiterated that he did not feel the daycare center was harmonious with their use. Mr. Roehlig added that they purchased and built on
their site under the conditions of the business park covenants and he felt that it is the City’s responsibility to enforce them. He further stated that he could let it go with the modifications
added to the proposal, but he still feels it is bad policy. Mr. Esslinger commented that he did not agree that this was an appropriate use for the business park. Mr. Baeten stated that
he would like the City’s oversight on the color scheme for the structure. Brian Gabavics, 3076 Rosewood Lane, petitioner for the project, stated that he would like to know where would
be an appropriate location for their daycare center. This site is close to their current location and they have significant time, money and effort invested into this site and want to
service clients in this area. Mr. Kleman added that Chamco, the Chamber and he knows this is not a perfect scenario for this project, but a conditional use permit would be required regardless
of the location for this type of use and the airport overlay zone limits where it can be located. A brief discussion followed regarding the restrictions on use in the airport overlay
zone. Motion by Weinsheim to approve the conditional use permit as requested with the following conditions: 1. A landscape plan be prepared by a registered landscape architect or designer
and approved by the Dept. of Community Development. Landscaping plan shall mitigate the impact of the fence on the area through use of berms and plantings to reduce the visibility of
the fence by 50% at plant maturity. 2. The fence shall be removed if the daycare use of the property discontinues. 3. A variance is granted to the Universal Business Park Covenants to
permit construction of a 4 ft. high black chain link fence to enclose the proposed playground. 4. The site plan be modified to reposition the building from the east property line to
the west property line with final approval by the Dept. of Community Development. 5. Final exterior building material and colors to be approved by the Dept. of Community Development.
Seconded by Bowen. Motion carried 5-1. Ayes-Bowen/Fojtik/Lowry/Weinsheim/Dell’Antonia. Nays-Esslinger III. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/DEVELOPMENT PLAN MODIFICATION FOR INSTALLATION OF OFF-PREMISE
IDENTIFICATION SIGNS AT THE COUNTRY USA SITE ALONG S. WASHBURN STREET CUP/PD approval: Country USA is requesting to install two off-premise signs at the site of its new location along
S. Washburn Street. One ground sign will be located in the driveway area that identifies the site, the name of the site, “Ford Festival Park”, and contains the Ford oval graphic. The
other pylon sign would be a 34-foot high “Ford” dealership oval sign in the front entrance area south of the driveway entrance. The signs are considered off-premise signs because the
site is not an auto dealership site and are required to be granted a base standard modification to the the Zoning Ordinance to permit such signage which is being requested through the
CUP/PD approval process.
Plan Commission Minutes 6 May 17, 2007 Mr. Dell’Antonia asked if the issue with the signs was not the size but the content. Mr. Burich responded yes. If the Ford oval logo was made as
part of the “Ford Festival Park” name of the park it would be acceptable by City ordinances. He also noted that the letter that was distributed to the board members from Herrling Clark
Law Firm in regard to this issue mentions that vehicles would be parked for display purposes near this sign is not part of the request being reviewed today. Mr. Esslinger inquired how
far from the road the signs would be located. Mr. Burich replied that is was not specified in the submitted plans, but the minimum setback would be 25 feet. Chuck Koehler, Herrling Clark
Law Firm, Appleton, stated that this is the first year of the festival at its new location and it is leased property. The costs of moving the event to this site was enormous and as it
is located in both the Town of Nekimi and the City of Oshkosh there has been a number of compliance items for them to resolve. He further stated that sporting arenas have advertising
on site for their sponsors and he did not feel that it was setting a precedence for other businesses to request off-premise signage. It depends on how you interpret the ordinance and
he faxed a copy of this same letter that was distributed to the board to the City Attorney as well for review. Ford has concerns with the issue and is only looking to advertise their
product on the site as they are sponsoring the event, however, they are not directing people to a place of business in particular, its just an advertisement for their product in general.
He passed around a mock up of a new ground sign with the Ford logo incorporated into the park name for review. Mr. Burich inquired about the location of the proposed signage. He noted
that if the signage was located on the site itself, such as in sporting arenas, instead of on Highway 41 there would not be an issue with City ordinances. Mr. Koehler replied that he
was not involved with the negotiations with Ford regarding the signage, but that most sporting arenas have a structure on site to mount the sign on which was not the case here. Mr. Lowry
asked if the pylon sign also incorporated the Ford logo as part of the name of the park if it would then be acceptable by the ordinances. Mr. Burich responded that it would. Mr. Dell’Antonia
suggested that if the pylon sign was moved further inside the grounds it would be out of the City limits and out of the City’s jurisdiction. Mr. Bowen added that the issue was the effort
the City has made to eliminate signage in the 41 corridor as part of the Planned Development overlay. Dan Liebhauser, Country USA, 2065 American Drive, Neenah, stated that he would have
to have any alterations to the proposed signage approved by Ford as he is bound by contract with them for the naming rights as an integral part of the contract. They have taken great
care to develop this new site so it does not have a commercial look to it. Mr. Lowry complimented Mr. Liebhauser on the appearance of the new site and stated that we need to make sure
that Ford is buying sponsorship for the site and not signage.
Plan Commission Minutes 7 May 17, 2007 Mr. Esslinger commented that he felt that the event is fantastic and is great for the local economy. He has no problem with the signs and feels
we should approve them regardless and let them work things out. Mr. Weinsheim stated that he did not see where moving the Ford logo into the name of the park would change things much
to adhere to the City ordinance. He asked where the boundary line of the City limits was located in comparison to the sign. Mr. Burich replied that it was about a quarter of a mile back
from the road. Mr. Weinsheim commented that just the Ford logo on the sign was meaningless and that it would not help to define the location. Mr. Liebhauser stated that the gateway landscaping
and waterfalls were a million dollar expense project and they could not have done this without Ford’s financial support. He did not feel that a sign off to the side was that obtrusive.
A brief discussion followed regarding changing the content of the pylon sign to make it approvable within the City’s ordinances or the option of moving it within the festival grounds
out of the City’s jurisdiction. Motion by Bowen to amend the conditions to allow the 34-foot high pylon sign with the condition that the Ford oval graphic be integrated into the full
park name. Seconded by Weinsheim. Motion carried 5-1. Ayes-Bowen/Fojtik/Lowry/Weinsheim/Dell’Antonia. Nays-Esslinger. Motion by Weinsheim to approve the conditional use permit/development
plan modification as requested with the following conditions: 1. A 9 ft. high off-premise ground sign to include the name of the site, “Ford Festival Park” with the Ford oval graphic
removed from the sign or incorporated in the park name. 2. A 34 ft. high off-premise Ford dealership oval ground sign with the park’s full name be incorporated into the sign with final
approval of said sign by the Dept. of Community Development. Seconded by Bowen. Motion carried 6-0. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 5:45 pm. Respectfully
Respectfully submitted, Darryn Burich Director of Planning Services