HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes
PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 7, 2006 PRESENT: Lee Bettes, Thomas Fojtik, Shirley Mattox, Kathleen Propp, John Weinsheim and Chairman Dell’Antonia EXCUSED: David Borsuk, Steven Gehling,
Cathy Scherer, and Jeff Thorkildsen STAFF: Darryn Burich, Planning Services Director, David Buck, Zoning Administrator/Associate Planner, and Vickie Rand, Recording Secretary Chairman
Dell’Antonia called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. The meeting minutes of January 17, 2006 were approved as mailed. (Bettes/Propp)
Unanimous. ITEM I: CONSENT AGENDA A: TWO LOT LAND DIVISION/CSM ALONG WASHBURN STREET – Bechard Investments, Inc., petitioner, Flanagan and Stauffer, owner B: DEDICATE RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR
ALLEY PURPOSES – Department of Public Works C: REVISE RIGHT-OF-WAY PLAT WASHBURN STREET RECONSTRUCTION – Department of Public Works D: GRANT ENCROACHMENT EASEMENT AT 2225-2229 MINNESOTA
STREET – City Administration E: ACCEPT PUBLIC UTILITY AND ACCESS EASEMENTS OUTSIDE OF CASEY’S MEADOW SOUTH SUBDIVISION PLAT – Department of Public Works Mr. Burich pulled Item I “A”
from the Consent Agenda to be discussed separately. There was no discussion for the remainder of the Consent Agenda. Motion by Fojtik for approval of the Consent Agenda Items “B” – “E”.
Seconded by Weinsheim. Motion carried 6-0. A: TWO LOT LAND DIVISION/CSM ALONG WASHBURN STREET – Bechard Investments, Inc., petitioner, Flanagan and Stauffer, owner Dennis Jochman, Bechard
Investments, Inc., 17 Park Place, Ste. 100, Appleton, stated he was representing the partnership of Flanagan & Stauffer. He stated they have owned the property for over 30 years and
when the original sewer pipe was put in the easement was planned for 10 feet and the City asked for 20 feet and that is what is currently there.
Plan Commission Minutes -2 February 7, 2006 He stated his clients had hoped this would be enough area to service the pipe and have also talked to the Department of Public Works. He stated
they prefer not to expand this area further if it is not necessary. Mr. Jochman questioned why this would need to be expanded and would he need to seek a variance or have the easement
noted on the Certified Survey Map (CSM). Mr. Burich stated verbiage would be noted on the CSM to restrict any structures in the easement area unless specifically allowed by the Department
of Public Works. Mr. Burich noted this would allow the City to review plans for landscaping, or fencing that the owners wish to install. He stated if PublicWorks would need to service
the pipe they would be able to replace any obstacle they needed to remove. Mr. Jochman questioned the setbacks. Mr. Burich stated a minimum setback of 15 feet from the lot line would
be required for anything of a building nature, and a 5’ minimum setback would be required with the easement. Mr. Jochman questioned if the encroachment agreement would need to come before
the Plan Commission for approval. Mr. Burich stated the agreement would be approved by the City Manager. Mr. Bettes asked Mr. Patek to explain why the easement needed to be expanded
from 20 – 30 feet. Mr. Patek stated he was never aware of a 10 foot easement as Mr. Jochman had stated was originally planned for, as the sanitary sewer pipe is 14” – 15” in diameter.
He stated a normal trench would need a minimum of 15’ on each side for a one-to-one slope; therefore a 30’ easement was the minimum width necessary for repair work to be done. He stated
if they were installing the sewer at this time they would ask for a 40’ easement. Mr. Patek stated he believes the people who granted the 20’ easement in 1976 were the same people who
developed the land to the west and decided to place the easements on private property instead of trying to keep installation of sanitary sewer pipe in the street as is currently recommended.
Mr. Mr. Weinsheim questioned a one to one slope. Mr. Patek stated a one to one slope was actually to steep, the worse case scenario in which to make repairs. Ms. Mattox questioned what
condition the sewer pipe was in since it was installed in 1976. Mr. Patek stated the life of sewer pipe is 75 – 125 years. He stated he isn’t concerned about replacement of the sewer
pipe at this time, but with the area needed to make repairs. He stated this was the appropriate time to deal with this issue, when a land division was requested, so someone will not
have the problem of too narrow of an easement when future repairs need to be done. Mr. Bettes stated he would like to see a cross access agreement in place for these lots. Ms. Mattox
questioned why the lots were proposed to be divided unequally. Mr. Burich stated the Highway 41 Corridor requires lots to be at least 1-1/2 acres for development and the developer only
has plans for the development of Lot 1 at this time. Mr. Jochman stated the developer for Lot 1 stated he would be interested in a possible expansion to the south if they could find
another tenant; therefore, there would be no problem with a cross access agreement.
Plan Commission Minutes -3-February 7, 2006 Motion by Bettes for approval of the two lot land division along Washburn Street subject to the following conditions: 1) Provide for an additional
5 feet of sanitary sewer easement along the north side of Lot 1. 2) A Cross Access Easement shall be in place between Lot 1 and Lot 2. Seconded by Mattox. Motion carried 6-0. II: LAND
DISPOSITION: 837 WOODLAND AVENUE – Department of Community Development Motion by Weinsheim for approval to dispose of surplus real estate of a single family home located at 837 Woodland
Avenue. Seconded by Fojtik. Mr. Bettes offered some history of the area and the development of University parking in the neighborhood. Mr. Bettes stated the subject property was a key
house in the neighborhood and would have continued to decay had the City not come forward with funds to rehabilitate the dwelling. He stated the street is on the up swing and has his
support. Motion carried 6-0. III: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF AN OFF-PREMISE LODGING SIGN – Randy Streblow, petitioner, Finton Flanagan ,
owner Randy Streblow, 3312 Circle R Road, stated the boards blew off the sign for Circle R Campground located along Highway 41, but the poles for the sign are still in place, and he
is here to request the reconstruction of that sign. He stated the sign is setback 71 feet from the center of Washburn Street and 60’ from the property line, where he understands 25’
is required. Mr. Burich stated he would need to verify the actual distance the sign is set back otherwise a base standard modification may need to be granted. Chairman Dell’Antonia didn’t
feel it would be reasonable to penalize the petitioner for damages the wind has done, and he was comfortable with the sign being in the same location. Mr. Burich stated the sign could
be reconstructed in the same location if it is in compliance. If not a base standard modification will need to be granted to put it back in the same location, however, the City would
like to have the sign located in compliance if possible. Ms. Mattox questioned if the billboard would have to come down if it wasn’t used for lodging. Mr. Burich stated if it wasn’t
used for lodging it wouldn’t be allowed to be reconstructed or used as some other type of off-premise sign.
Plan Commission Minutes -4-February 7, 2006 Mr. Weinsheim questioned if the old sign was proposed to be put back up or if a new sign would be constructed. Mr. Streblow stated a new sign
was erected in October and blew down around Thanksgiving time, and therefore he would be putting up the same sign. Mr. Burich questioned if they added new poles. Mr. Streblow stated
the poles were still in place; they just needed to be straightened out. Motion by Bettes for approval for a conditional use permit /development plan review for the construction of an
off-premise directional lodging sign as found to be consistent with Section 30-11 (D) and 30-33 (E)(b) of the Zoning Ordinance subject to the following conditions: 1) Sign is only permitted
to be used as an off-premise directional lodging sign. 2) No changes permitted to the sign copy structure without City approval. 3) East edge of sign must be setback a minimum of 25
feet from the edge of the right-of-way with the petitioner/owner to provide verification prior to sign erection. Seconded by Weinsheim. Motion carried 6-0. IV: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FOR AUTOMOBILE SALES AT 502 WEST MURDOCK AVENUE -Michael Dunlap of Dunlap Auto Sales, petitioner, Jeff Wicinsky of Laser Investments, owner Mr. Bettes questioned how close cars could
be parked to Murdock Avenue if this conditional use permit (CUP) was approved. Mr. Buck stated cars would be required to be parked 25 feet back from the property line. Mr. Bettes questioned
how far the building was set back. Mr. Buck replied that it looked as though the building was set back 25-30 feet. Mr. Burich noted that a new parking space would need to be 25 feet
back from the property line, if parking spaces haven’t already been established. He stated the parking spaces don’t need to be in line with the front of the building, as most car lots
display cars in the front of the building. Mr. Bettes stated his concern was where they would display cars on Murdock Avenue, as he felt this was critical to their success. Mr. Burich
indicated that Mr. Buck stated in his presentation that the petitioner is proposing to have the majority of the sales to be made over the Internet. Mr. Weinsheim questioned if additional
signage would be installed. Mr. Burich stated signage would possibly be installed on the building, which would need to meet zoning requirements. Ms. Mattox questioned where the 17 parking
spaces were located. Mr. Burich stated 8 parking spaces have been submitted with this request. Ms. Mattox also questioned what would happen to the car wash use. Mr. Buck stated the self-service
car wash would remain.
Plan Commission Minutes -5-February 7, 2006 Chairman Dell’Antonia questioned if the petitioner was intending to sell strictly automobiles, and stated he would like to add another condition
to ensure no boats or recreational vehicles, etc. would be sold on the site. Mike Dunlap, 1910 Cliffview Court, stated that this proposed auto sales use is not for a traditional used
car sales lot. He stated he has no intention of selling anything other than vehicles. He stated he is intending to have a unique kind of business with only 2-3 cars on the lot at one
time and those being higher end vehicles. He stated he doesn’t anticipate a lot of activity on the lot or a lot of local customers, although that would be a bonus. He stated he was not
planning on changing any signage, only the lettering. Mr. Bettes asked where he would display the vehicles. Mr. Dunlap stated there are 2 parallel parking spaces on the side of the building
close to Murdock Avenue where he would display vehicles. Mrs. Propp stated the vehicle currently parked out front is in an illegal parking space. She noted there is very little room
for vehicle parking and he would be lucky to get 6 parking spaces without obstructing something, such as the door of the building. Mr. Dunlap stated he is not looking to operate a large
business. He stated he was attracted to this site because of the location and the neatness of the site. Mr. Dunlop stated he understood the Plan Commission’s concerns about storage or
junk accumulating on the site, but noted that is not his intention. Mr. Burich pointed out that the site plan submitted with the conditional use permit application is the plan to be
approved. Chairman Dell’Antonia asked if the cars for sale would be taken in on consignment or if he would own them. Mr. Dunlap stated he would own all the cars available for sale. Chairman
Dell’Antonia questioned if he had another location for storage of vehicles. Mr. Dunlap stated he is not intending to store vehicles and does not have another storage location. He stated
his goal would be to sell 2-3 cars a month, and would not have a problem with including a condition upon approval for no sale of boats, recreational vehicles, etc. Mr. Burich stated
that Chairman Dell’Antonia had a good point as this conditional use permit could change hands and another automobile dealership could come in with different intentions. Richard Crystal,
502 W. Murdock Avenue, stated he has been operating a car wash /detailing business at the subject location since October 10, 2005. He stated he is a young business owner, 23 years old,
and business is great for him in this location, therefore he doesn’t know why they would want to put a car lot there. He stated he cleaned the site up from the prior use, and the building
looks great. He stated there is an abundance of car lots in the area. Mr. Crystal stated he runs a full-time business where Mr. Dunlap stated he would be there 15-20 hours a week. He
stated Mr. Dunlap also stated he will be only selling high-end vehicles, and noted a dealership on Highway 21 who offers the same thing, with ample parking, where this lot offers a maximum
of 5 parking spaces. Mr. Crystal also stated the building isn’t set back more than 25’ from the road. He also said with a car wash located there a used car sales lot could be a hazard
for traffic circulation. Mr. Crystal stated he has 15-20 cars an hour going through the car wash and is often there more than 40 hours a week to keep things running smoothly. He stated
he would like to stay in this location and encouraged the Plan Commission to deny this request.
Plan Commission Minutes -6-February 7, 2006 Mrs. Propp questioned if Mr. Crystal owned the building. Mr. Crystal stated he was leasing the building. Mrs. Propp questioned if he has been
asked to move. Mr. Crystal stated he has a month-tomonth agreement with payment based upon the number of cars he services. He stated he is ready to sign an 18 month lease unless another
option became available to the owner. He stated he would like to stay there, and this request would put him out of business. Mr. Crystal stated he had an argument with the owner over
24 hour access to the building, but that has been resolved. Chairman Dell’Antonia questioned if the two businesses could co-exist. Mr. Crystal stated that wasn’t an option and he has
been looking for a new site. Chairman Dell’Antonia stated that leasing the space to someone else appears to be a viable option for the owner. Mr. Dunlap stated a realtor has listed the
subject property and he has negotiated with the owner for a more favorable lease. He stated signing signing the lease is based on the decision by the Plan Commission for a conditional
use permit. Mr. Dunlap stated he has not found an ordinance that limits the number of auto sales in a particular area. He also stated he has a tentative agreement with the owner who
is looking for a different tenant for the property. Mr. Crystal stated he has spoken with the owner and if the CUP isn’t approved he will sign the lease for a car wash. He stated there
are a lot of car lots in the area, and only 2 detail shops. Mr. Fojtik stated he hopes the public understands that the Plan Commission isn’t responsible for the outcome of the lease,
and felt it was unfair to be put in this position. Chairman Dell’Antonia stated it was the Plan Commission’s job to decide if the use is appropriate for the area, not to determine how
many are appropriate. Mr. Bettes stated that actually is was, to some degree, the Plan Commission’s role to determine how many of the same type of uses are needed in the City. He stated
every CUP is probably something the City needs, but doesn’t need too much of, and that’s why they are here, for the Plan Commission to review the land use issue, irrelevant to the detail
shop, whether one more used car lot is a good use for this site. He stated statutorily, there is no quota for car lots allowed in a specific area, but for any item requiring a CUP that
issue can be considered. Mr. Bettes stated the Plan Commission needs to decide whether another used car lot is appropriate for this site. Mr. Weinsheim stated he hasn’t seen a study
for the number of car lots in the area, or any other analysis that would support this type of business. Mr. Bettes stated the Plan Commission never has had a numeric analysis for a site
and a determination is needed. He stated he doesn’t feel it would be a good use for the site as it is a congested area, and the car wash is tight as it is. He also noted that car lots
have failed in this area. Mr. Weinsheim stated as a business decision, the potential business owner has realized the limit for vehicles displayed on this property and has determined
a limited scope of business that he can do here, which doesn’t determine the success or failure of this business. Mr. Burich explained how staff reviews a conditional use permit per
the Zoning Ordinance standards. Mr. Burich stated staff needs to take into account whether such a use will have a negative impact on an area, whether it would be hazardous or detrimental
to an area and to look at each site individually.
Plan Commission Minutes -7-January 17, 2006 Chairman Dell’Antonia stated he would like to add a condition upon approval for the sale of only automobiles, pick-up trucks one ton or less,
and SUV’s. Motion by Weinsheim for approval of a conditional use permit to establish a used automobile dealership on an approximate 0.35 acre parcel of land at 502 W. Murdock Avenue
subject to the following conditions: 1) Site/business is maintained and operated per the submitted site plan. 2) No more than 6 automobiles displayed on-site at any given time. 3) Automobile
repair and service, other than cleaning, is prohibited. 4) Storage of inoperable/junked vehicles or parts on the site is prohibited. 5) Sale of only automobiles, pick-up trucks one ton
or less, and SUV’s. Seconded by Fojtik. Mrs. Propp stated she was still concerned with 6 automobiles being the maximum number allowed on the lot. Mr. Burich stated if they don’t follow
the conditions of the CUP the CUP could be revoked. Motion carried 5-1. Nay: Bettes. V: ZONE CHANGE AT 1874, 1896, 1900 OMRO ROAD AND 1424 RATH LANE – Norman Mueller, petitioner, Ran-Lie,
Inc., owner Norm Mueller, 437 Hazel Street, stated between Annie’s Restaurant and Robbins Restaurant there are 8 properties. He explained what the businesses are and how the surrounding
properties have been changed to a commercial zoning district. He stated he is also requesting a zone change for the next item on the Agenda, 1820 & 1844 Omro Road, to reflect what is
already a commercial district. Mr. Bettes questioned if Mr. Mueller understood and accepted the Planned Development (PD Overlay) designation recommended for the change to the C-2 Zoning
District. Mr. Mueller stated he understood and would accept that zoning designation. Mrs. Propp stated she was concerned with construction taking place before the interested parties
know what the interchange will look like. Mr. Burich stated that was the reasoning for the PD Overlay added to the C-2 Zoning District. He stated that would authorize the City to do
an extra level of review in conjunction with the design for the area. Mr. Mueller stated he has known they will lose the driveways in that area, but want to move forward with changes
now, the sooner the better.
Plan Commission Minutes -8-January 17, 2006 Chairman Dell’Antonia questioned if changing this zoning would have any effect on the plans for the reconstruction of Highway’s 41 or 21.
Mr. Burich stated the added PD Overlay will make sure that when a proposal comes in for the area the City will be able to review it in conjunction with the proposed plan of the State
Department of Transportation for the interchange, and feels the base C-2 Zoning District is appropriate for this area. Motion by Bettes for approval of the zone change to establish a
C-2PD zoning district for the properties located at 1874, 1896, 1900 Omro Road and 1424 Rath Lane. Seconded by Weinsheim. Motion carried 6-0. VI: ZONE CHANGE AT 1820 AND 1844 OMRO ROAD
– Norman Mueller, petitioner, Ran-Lie, Inc., owner Mr. Burich introduced this item, noting a communication had come in to the office in opposition to the zone change, as they don’t want
to see any more lands zoned commercial in the area that may increase the traffic problems they are already experiencing. Mr. Burich stated that staff feels the C-2 zoning is appropriate
for this area from a land use perspective and will work in conjunction with the State’s reconstruction plan for the area. Motion by Propp for approval of the zone change to establish
a C-2 PD Zoning District for the properties located at 1820 and 1844 Omro Road. Seconded by Bettes. Motion carried 6-0. VII: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW REQUEST
FOR USED AUTOMOBILE SALES AND VEHICLE TOWING/TEMORARY STORAGE AT 1701 FOUNTAIN AVENUE -Lorenz Rangeloff, petitioner; Alois and Yvette Collins, owners Mr. Buck introduced the item noting
that the request has been modified from the previous requests that have come forward. Mr. Buck reviewed the request pointing out, on the PowerPoint presentation, the location for different
uses on the site. Mr. Buck passed around a landscape plan and proposed fencing for the tow storage area that was submitted earlier that day, noting he had not had time to do a thorough
review of the materials. Attorney David Winkel, 36 Jewelers Park Drive, Neenah, WI, thanked the staff for their professionalism and work done on this item. Attorney Winkel stated Mr.
Rangeloff has completed the purchase of the property in the last couple of weeks and is proposing to delete two historical uses on the property in exchange for two new uses. He stated
Mr. Rangeloff is eliminating gas sales, and the underground storage tanks have been removed and other scrap and salvage will be removed within 30 days. He also stated Mr. Rangeloff will
be eliminating the food service and would like to have used cars available for sale on the site and offer an off site towing /temporary storage service. Mr. Winkel stated there has always
been a towing service offered to tow vehicles to the site, but his client is now proposing to tow trucks to other repair shops, and have temporary storage on site. Mr. Rangeloff would
also like to keep his fleet of tow trucks on the property.
Plan Commission Minutes -9-January 17, 2006 Attorney Winkel stated Mr. Rangeloff is basically asking for a substitution of the two other uses. He stated if Mr. Rangeloff were allowed
these uses his plan would be to upgrade the property as outlined in the narrative submitted with the application, as recommended by staff. He stated the first upgrade would be to stripe
the front parking area to have vehicles parked in designated stalls. The second upgrade would be to have the tow trucks parked under the large canopy in front of the building, which
would be the only canopy that would remain on the site. The third upgrade would be to install landscaping along Fountain Avenue and Green Valley Road. He stated red maples are proposed
along Green Valley Road, and arborvitaes along Fountain Avenue and to clean up the area along the northeast corner and plant arborvitaes there as well. Attorney Winkel stated the fourth
upgrade would be to install a solid fence on the west side of the property to screen the outside storage. The fifth upgrade would be the removal of the gas pumps, tanks and canopies.
The sixth upgrade would be to take care of miscellaneous maintenance of the structure, as recommended in condition number seven of the Staff Report, which includes the replacement of
broken windows, the replacement of 4 overhead garage doors, replacing broken exterior lights that are unsightly, and remove all nonfunctional heating and air conditioning units on the
roof. The seventh upgrade would be to make a truck trailer concrete parking area to force the line up of trucks in an orderly parking fashion. Attorney Winkel stated Mr. Rangeloff wants
to create additional revenue from car sales that is being lost from the previous gas and food sales so every year more money can be put back into the property. He also stated a solid
6 foot tall metal fence is proposed that comes with a good warranty. He stated Mr. Rangeloff has used this fence in the Town of Neenah for the last 6 years and has no problems with any
chipping or pealing. Attorney Winkel stated it is not the best looking site and his client realizes it needs to be cleaned up, but at this time there is limited economic means to make
improvements. However, he stated if his client is granted a conditional use permit to sell used cars and provide a towing service there will be more money for improvements, for without
the new uses, the site would have to remain the same as it is now. Mr. Buck stated that the Hwy. 41 Corridor Overlay regulation for outdoor storage requires solid wood or masonry fencing,
otherwise there would need to be a base standard modification made to allow the metal fencing. Mr. Winkel stated they would have no problem with a solid wood fence, but would prefer
to use the metal fencing due to less maintenance required, therefore, they request the base standard modification to allow for a metal fence. Mr. Weinsheim questioned when the last time
gas and food was sold. Mr. Winkel stated he didn’t know the actual time frame. Mr. Bettes questioned if Mr. Winkel and his client have seen the Staff Report and if they are willing to
accept the condition for the CUP to be valid for a period of two years and realize the risk involved. Mr. Winkel stated his client is willing to accept that condition. He stated there
had been some disagreement between his client and staff, but is willing to live with that condition. Mr. Bettes also made note that the Plan Commission is not able to consider economic
hardship in the decision making process. Mr. Winkel stated they felt that if the CUP were not renewed after a two year period they would still be able to use the site as a truck stop,
therefore reducing their risk. He stated his client hopes the City will see money being put back into the business upon approval of the CUP and the site taking on the right direction.
Plan Commission Minutes -10-January 17, 2006 Chairman Dell’Antonia questioned if there was any restriction on the number or size of used cars on the site. Attorney Winkel stated there
is a restriction on the number and size of vehicles, as they need to be in compliance with the parking plan. Chairman Dell’Antonia questioned how many vehicles they would have for sale.
Attorney Winkel stated they would have approximately 50 cars for sale, located only in the northeast corner that is designated for used car sales, where only 50 parking spaces would
be available. Chairman Dell’Antonia also questioned if the cars for sale would be those that had been towed and repaired or if this would be a general type of used car operation. Attorney
Winkel stated this would be a general type of used car operation. He stated Mr. Rangeloff has a dealership license and would be purchasing cars from auctions to be available for sale.
He stated during the winter when times were slow some cars may come from body shops where cars have been repaired, so there may be some mix of used cars for sale. Mr. Burich stated junk
cars are not allowed for sale. Mr. Winkel stated they would meet the City ordinance. Mrs. Propp made reference to the site plan and the area for truck parking on concrete pads and questioned
if the rest of the area would be used for anything. Attorney Winkel stated the trucks would be parked in the concrete stanchions in the area as depicted on the site plan on the west
and south side of the site. Mr. Buck reviewed the parking areas on the map displayed in the PowerPoint presentation. Attorney Winkel stated the trucks need that open area for maneuvering
and if anything happens to be parked in that area, for example after hours from being towed in, it will be moved as soon as possible, as it would be blocking the maneuverability of the
other trucks. Mrs. Propp reviewed the rest of the site for other uses with Attorney Winkel verifying what each location was to be used for and that the interior of the site would remain
open open for maneuvering and not utilized as storage. Mrs. Propp questioned if there was access from the north. Attorney Winkel stated there was only access from 2 north driveways.
Mr. Weinsheim questioned if there would be parking or storage for boats, rv’s, etc. Attorney Winkel stated there would be no storage or parking for boats, etc., as that was not part
of the business plan. Mrs. Propp stated she remains concerned
about the condition of the building. Attorney Winkel stated there are a lot of legal non-conforming buildings in the City of Oshkosh. He stated condition number 7 in the Staff Report
required a statement explaining the scope of work to be done on the existing structure to be submitted for the Department of Community Development review and approval. He stated they
wouldn’t be doing anything in 2006 except the 5 maintenance projects mentioned earlier, the replacement of broken windows, the replacement of 4 overhead doors, the replacement of exterior
lights, and the removal of all non-functioning heat and air conditioning units on the roof. He stated the other improvements would be made with funds received in 2006 from used car sales,
and towing services. He stated if the CUP isn’t approved his client will not have the funds to make site improvements. Chairman Dell’Antonia stated he didn’t see a downside to approval
of the CUP as there will start to be improvements to what’s there.
Plan Commission Minutes -11-January 17, 2006 Mr. Weinsheim stated the applicant has come back with many things that have been asked for and this will be a beginning for the improvement
of the property. He stated with a review in two years the site can be reviewed for compliance and the CUP can be revoked if necessary. Mrs. Propp questioned what would happen in two
years if the Plan Commission feels they haven’t complied with the CUP. Mr. Burich stated they could either make additional conditions or revoke the CUP if the site if found not to be
in compliance. Mr. Burich stated the City will continue to monitor the site and if not in compliance citations will be issued and they could also be removed from the towing rotation.
Mr. Buck stated the site can also be regulated by the nuisance code and the municipal code. Mr. Burich stated they haven’t moved forward with issuing citations on the site, as they wanted
to get this CUP process taken care of first. Mr. Bettes stated that Council has argued that they can operate historic uses of the property, and at the end of two years can they re-impose
these historic uses. He questioned if that would include uses such as food and gas service and questioned if the City has agreed to that. Mr. Burich stated they have not bargained away
services they are already providing, however, if they want to re-establish uses such as food and gas service they would need a site plan approval. He stated they do have the ability
to perform truck stop services. Attorney Winkel stated there might have been a misunderstanding, as he was referring to the truck stop services still being available and not that they
would want to re-establish the food or gas service. He stated the gas pumps have been removed, and they realize the used car sales and towing to other sites other than the truck stop
and temporary storage use would be revoked. Chairman Dell’Antonia recommended granting the base standard modification for the use of a metal fence. He didn’t feel a wood fence would
be necessary. Mr. Burich stated he will be required to maintain the fence. Mr. Weinsheim stated the Department of Community Development would still approve the materials intended for
that purpose. Ms. Mattox stated she understands if the CUP is not approved for the sale of used cars, money wouldn’t be available for improvements such as concrete pads for truck parking.
Mr. Burich stated if they don’t get approval for the CUP, they don’t have to meet the conditions of the CUP, and there would be no incentive or money to make the improvements. Ms. Mattox
questioned if Mr. Rangeloff has also purchased Parcel B. Attorney Winkel stated Mr. Rangeloff has not purchased Parcel B, although he does have a 5 year lease of the acre to the west
of the subject property. Attorney Winkel explained that when the Collins had the land divided it didn’t encompass the entire parking area, therefore his client leased one acre to the
west to encompass the entire parking area. Mr. Burich stated the concern was the ability for Mr. Rangeloff to use Parcel Parcel B. Attorney Winkel stated they have no rights to Parcel
B and it is not part of the site plan.
Plan Commission Minutes -12-January 17, 2006 Motion by Bettes for approval of the conditional use permit for used automobile sales and vehicle towing/temporary storage on the site subject
to the following conditions: 1. The CUP/PD be valid for a period of two years from its date of approval by the Common Council, at which time the site and uses be fully reviewed for compliance.
2. Base Code Modification is granted for reduction in the transition yard on the west property line from 17.5’ to 10’. 3. Site/business is maintained and operated per the submitted site
plan. There is no expansion of the “historic” uses on-site without prior approval. 4. Outside storage of parts, fluids, tires and other automotive service related items shall be prohibited
in all areas other than the enclosed storage area. 5. A landscape plan is submitted with a planting schedule identifying specie types and quantities for Department of Community Development
review and approval. 6. An example and depiction of the proposed fencing of the tow storage area be submitted for Department of Community Development review and approval. 7. A statement
explaining the scope of work to be done on the existing structure be submitted for Department of Community Development review and approval. 8. Towing-related fleet vehicles are limited
in parking location to under the existing metal canopy, between the canopy and the building or in the screened storage areas. 9. Grant a base standard modification to allow a metal fence
with fencing to be approved by the Department of Community Development. Seconded by Weinsheim. Mrs. Propp stated she want to see the business succeed and see improvements, and even though
this may not be everything the City wants, it does have her support. Chairman Dell’Antonia stated Mr. Rangeloff has already purchased the property in good faith. Motion carried 6-0.
VIII: PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 30/ZONING REGULATIONS – ARTICLE XV. FLOODPLAIN PROVISIONS -Department of Community Development Mr. Buck introduced this item and explained that
the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency revised their model floodplain ordinance to incorporate recent changes of administrative
code revisions to NR116, to conform to Wisconsin Supreme Court Cases and conform to minimum standards of the National Flood Insurance Program regulations.
Plan Commission Minutes -13-January 17, 2006 He stated the City is also required to make these changes to our present floodplain zoning regulations to ensure consistency of our Ordinance,
to continue to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program and allow the City to receive improved floodplain maps through the FEMA map modernization process. Mr. Buck stated
that in reviewing the number or new code provisions that need to be integrated into our Ordinance, it would be much easier to simply replace the City’s present Ordinance with the Model
Ordinance prepared by the WDNR. Mr. Dell’Antonia questioned if the ordinance contained information as to where the general public could get elevation information on their property. Mr.
Burich stated the only way to get specific elevation information was to have a survey done of the property. Mrs. Propp questioned if the Board of Appeals would be the proper board to
deal with any issues that may come up regarding the Ordinance. Mr. Burich and Mr. Buck stated examples of issues the Plan Commission may need to address as well as issues the Board of
Appeals would address. Motion by Weinsheim for approval of the proposed text amendment to the City of Oshkosh Zoning Code repealing and recreating Article XV: Floodplain Provisions,
which encompasses Section 30-39 through Section 30-67 of the Zoning Ordinance. Seconded by Bettes. Motion carried 6-0. IX: AMEND SECTION 30-13 OF THE OSHKOSH ZONING ORDINANCE (CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT, FEES) -City Administration Mr. Burich introduced this item requesting the fee associated with processing a conditional use permit (CUP) be increased from $250 to $300. Mr.
Burich noted the amount of time and various departments involved in reviewing the request and also noted the proposed fee was in line with what the surrounding areas charge for a conditional
use permit review. Mr. Burich stated this change requires an ordinance amendment, therefore, is recommending amending the fee schedule to increase the CUP fee from $250 to $300. Motion
by Propp Propp for approval to amend Section 30-13 of the Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance to increase the fee for a conditional use permit to $300. Seconded by Fojtik. Motion carried 6-0. There
being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 6:08 p.m. (Propp/Bettes). Unanimous. Respectfully submitted, DARRYN L. BURICH Director of Planning Services DLB/vlr