Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Plan Commission Minutes 1 September 19, 2006 PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 19, 2006 PRESENT: Ed Corpus, Steve Gehling, Kathy Propp, Cathy Scherer, Jeff Thorkildsen, Steven Gehling, Shirley Mattox, John Weinsheim, Jon Dell’Antonia EXCUSED: David Borsuk, Thomas Fojtik STAFF: David Buck, Associate Planner/Zoning Administrator; Deborah Foland, Recording Secretary Chairman Dell’Antonia called the meeting to order at 4:00 pm. The minutes of September 5, 2006 were approved as presented. I. STREET NAME CHANGE FOR A PORTION OF S. MAIN STREET FROM 2312-2344 S. MAIN STREET Five property owners along S. Main Street are requesting a street name change from S. Main Street to S. Lake View Lane or S. Harbor Lane from 2312 – 2344 S. Main Street. These residential properties all front on a narrow private drive running parallel to the railroad corridor that access N. Main Street on the south via 24th Avenue and S. Main street right-of-way. The request has been routed to emergency service providers and the Department of PublicWorks for review. The Police Department is objecting to the name change since the properties are located on a private drive and not a dedicated street and they feel this could cause some confusion in responding to emergency calls. The Fire Department did not object to the name change, but they did request a few alterations to the proposed street name. Ms. Scherer inquired as to what properties were located to the south of this area and what are their uses? Mr. Buck replied that the 24th Avenue boat launch is the only property located to the south. Mr. Gehling inquired as to why the Police Department found this name change to be a potential cause of confusion since the Fire Department did not object to it? Mr. Buck replied that the Police Department is familiar with this area as being part of S. Main Street. Ms. Mattox commented that this private drive appears to be a separate street from Main Street and was wondering if there would be additional development in this area? Mr. Buck replied that there were no lots for future development in this area other than the existing ones. Mr. Thorkildsen inquired if the railroad would vacate the corridor they currently occupy in the future, would there be sufficient room for additional development? Mr. Buck replied that there would be room for additional lots under those circumstances and the street dedication and the name change would most likely be reconsidered at that time. The naming of private drives usually involves an area that has a higher density of homes. Plan Commission Minutes 2 September 19, 2006 Mr. Dell’Antonia inquired if it is a private drive why the residents could not use a name of their choosing? Mr. Buck stated that they could do so, however, without the approval of the City, the street name would remain officially named Main Street for address purposes. Mr. Bowen inquired as to what alternatives the Fire Department recommended? Mr. Buck replied that the Fire Department suggested that the South be dropped, Lakeview be joined, and the suffix be changed to either Trail or Court. Mr. Wayne Strey, 2312 S. Main Street, stated that the reason they are requesting the change was due to the fact that persons not familiar will this area do not realize that this drive is considered to be part of Main Street as it is located on the other side of the railroad tracks segregated from Main Street. Ms. Mattox inquired as to who plows this street in winter? Mr. Strey replied that the City plows the street. Ms. Mattox commented that she felt the drive and neighborhood were an entity of its own and should be recognized as such. Mr. Corpus concurred. Mr. Gehling inquired about who would cover the costs of changing the deeds to these properties and what costs the City would incur due to this change? Mr. Buck replied that the homeowners would have to pay for the changes on their deeds and other documents such as driver’s licenses and the costs to the City would be minimal. Mr. Gehling inquired as to when the name change would be effective? Mr. Buck replied that it is usually designated to a future date by the resolution passed by the City Council. Motion by Corpus to approve the street name change incorporating the recommendation of dropping South and changing the suffix to Court or Trail. Seconded by Thorkildsen. Motion carried 7-2. Nays-Gehling/Propp. II. TWO LOT LAND DIVISION/CERTIFIED SURVEY MAP WITH STREET DEDICATION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED TO THE WEST OF 1701 FOUNTAIN AVENUE The purpose of the land division is to split off Lot 2 to allow it to be disposed of to the adjacent property owner (Loren’s 41 Truck Plaza) and allow Lot 1 to be acquired by a separate party who will then combine it with the adjacent 30 acre parcel for a large scale planned development, which will need to be brought forward for CUP/PD review. In the event the land division is not approved, the existing 8 acre parcel of land will remain as is and still be acquired by the party acquiring the undeveloped lands to the west of the subject property. In reviewing the CUP for Loren’s, Lot 2 was originally identified as an enclosed storage area for vehicles that was not approved as part of the Final Planned Development and they are currently not in compliance with the approved CUP. This land division could allow for expansion of a use not approved by the City. Plan Commission Minutes 3 September 19, 2006 Mr. Gehling inquired if plans for this area should be submitted for approval by the Plan Commission prior to requesting a land division? Mr. Buck replied yes. Ms. Mattox inquired as to who owns the agricultural lot to the west of this site? Mr. Buck replied Walter Engler. Ms. Mattox commented that she was concerned about the appearance of the site as Highway 41 is a major corridor into the City. Mr. Gehling commented that he felt there were too many unknowns relating to this land division to make an informed decision and he supported the staff’s recommendation to deny this request. Mr. Weinsheim agreed and also was concerned with the noncompliance issues from the CUP granted to Loren’s. Motion by Gehling to approve the land division as requested. Seconded by Thorkildsen. Denied 0-9. III. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST TO ENCLOSE AN EXISTING FENCED AREA FOR PARKING AND BOAT/TRAILER STORAGE AT 1018 W. MURDOCK AVENUE Mercury Marine is requesting a conditional use permit to establish open storage of boats/trailers and parking within two fenced areas of the lot. The lot is zoned M-2 which would allow this use on the site. The buildings on site were previously removed and the central portion is currently undergoing environmental remediation/cleanup. The proposed storage use would be on the eastern and western sides of the site and additional fencing and access gates would be installed to surround and secure the areas. The existing vegetation at the site as well as a condition requiring additional fencing at least 6’ tall and 90% solid will effectively address the potential negative visual impacts on the adjacent properties and address requirements of the code. Ms. Propp commented that she liked the landscape screen and inquired if the fencing would be installed on the inside or outside of the vegetation? Mr. Buck replied that the condition requiring fencing was not that specific. Mr. Gehling inquired if the fencing would be chain link or solid wood? Mr. Buck replied that it would most likely be consistent with what is currently on the site and would have to be within Zoning Code standards. Herb Kedinger, of Mercury Marine, 6250 Pioneer Road, Fond du Lac, commented that they also like the looks of the natural vegetation and vines have grown over some of the fencing. He inquired if the City would want that removed and replaced with fencing slats? Mr. Buck replied no. Plan Commission Minutes 4 September 19, 2006 Ms. Mattox inquired if this was to be a long-range use for the property or if they had any long-term plans? Mr. Kedinger replied that there were no long-term plans for this location. Mercury Marine has estimated that by February or March this site should be free of contamination and should be able to be utilized as some functional facility. They would look at long-term use then. Ms. Mattox inquired if they would be installing lights on the site and if the parking layout would be in an orderly fashion? Mr. Kedinger replied that they would not be installing lights and the parking areas would be laid out with striping. Ms. Mattox inquired if employee cars would also be parking on the site? Mr. Kedinger replied that the only vehicles parking there would be ones that tow trailers to the site. Harold Eichstadt, 1820 Vinland Road, stated that he has lived in this area for many years and did not feel that Mercury Marine were good neighbors in regards to taking care of the property. He commented that he would like the Plan Commission to deny their request based on the past issues with noise, smoke, deteriorating buildings, and lack of lawn care. He feels that it is now going to effectively become a junkyard. He also stated that there were deed restrictions on this property from many years ago and the City Attorney should investigate the matter. Ms. Propp stated that she felt this storage was adequate for a short-term use, but was wondering if this could become long term? Ms. Scherer also inquired if the CUP could be for a limited time only? Mr. Buck replied that the CUP is permanent and would remain with the property unless the use is not continued for a period greater than 12 months. Ms. Scherer inquired about the deed restrictions brought up by Mr. Eichstadt. Mr. Buck replied that deed restrictions are essentially private covenants between property owners and the City does not get involved with those issues. Mr. Dell’Antonia commented that the site may be better maintained maintained if the property was being used, however, he was wondering if a condition that the vehicles stored there be operable could be added? Mr. Buck replied yes. Mr. Kedinger commented that the intention was to store nothing other than operable boats at the site with the remaining area to be vacant to allow the remediation. Mr. Gehling commented that the storage is a proper use according to the zoning at the site and the owners should be able to utilize it for that purpose. He also stated that he felt that Mercury Marine would not be attempting remediation to the site if they did not have plans for a better use of the property in the future. Ms. Mattox inquired if a time limit can be applied to the storage use? Plan Commission Minutes 5 September 19, 2006 Mr. Buck replied that a review time can be applied to the CUP, however, nothing can be done if the conditions of the CUP are being met. Mr. Weinsheim agreed with Ms. Mattox that it may not be an ideal use for the site, but he does not see it as a long-term arrangement. Motion by Dell’Antonia to approve the conditional use permit with the following conditions: 1) Screening elements, at least 6’ tall and 90% solid, be installed at the perimeter of the storage yards. 2) Only operable vehicles to be stored on site restricted to boats, trailers, and accessory vehicles. No recreational vehicles allowed. Seconded by Thorkildsen. Carried 7-1-1. Nay-Mattox. Present-Scherer (spouse works for Mercury Marine) There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 5:05 pm. Respectfully submitted, Darryn Burich Director of Planning Services