Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 6, 2005 PRESENT: David Borsuk, Thomas Fojtik, Shirley Mattox, Kathleen Propp, Jeff Thorkildsen, and Vice Chairman Cathy Scherer EXCUSED: Lee Bettes, Jon Dell’Antonia, Steve Gehling, and John Weinsheim STAFF: David Buck, Zoning Administrator/Associate Planner; and Vickie Rand, Recording Secretary Vice Chairman Scherer called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. The meeting minutes of November 15, 2005 were approved as mailed. (Thorkildsen, Propp) Unanimous. I: CONSENT AGENDA A: GRANT EASEMENTS TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF FIVE MONITORING WELLS ON CITY PROPERTY -Alpha Terra Science, petitioners, City of Oshkosh, owner The Department of Community Development requests approval of easements to allow construction of five monitoring wells (mw) on City property for an environmental investigation of the former Gunderson Cleaners facility at 118 High Avenue. Mr. Borsuk questioned why no monitoring wells were located on Brown Street. David Patek, Director of Public Works, 215 Church Street, stated that the proposed wells were in addition to wells already located in the area, including Brown Street. Vice Chairman Scherer asked the origin of the need for the environmental investigation. Mr. Patek stated Gunderson Cleaners was the origin of the request for monitoring wells. B: DELETE OFFICIAL MAPPING (N. WASHBURN STREET) – Department of Community Development The Department of Community Development is requesting to delete a portion of mapped right-ofway running parallel with State Road 21 between Westowne Avenue on the west and N. Washburn Street on the east from the official map. The deletion involves an approximate 600-foot long, 80-foot wide portion of mapped right-of-way. The mapping was intended to provide a connection between the two streets. Ms. Mattox questioned if the land would revert back to the owners. Mr. Buck stated the land would not revert back to the abutting property owners, as it has been officially dedicated and constructed and therefore is actual right-of-way rather than reserved right-of-way. Plan Commission Minutes -2-December 6, 2005 Motion by Thorkildsen for approval of the Consent Agenda, with the following conditions for Item “A”. Item “A”: 1) The monitoring wells are installed in a manner that is approved by the Department of Public Works with no modifications or changes in construction procedure without prior approval by the Department of Public Works. 2) If no longer needed the wells be properly abandoned and removed in accordance with City standards and under the direction of the Department of Public Works. 3) Any problem that may arise as a result of the placement of the wells be the responsibility of the petitioner to correct in coordination with the Department of Public Works. 4) All appropriate permits be obtained prior to the start of placement of the wells. 5) The wells be modified or removed immediately upon the request of the City. 6) The petitioner secures and submits to the City Clerk a separate insurance policy which names the City as an additional insured with a minimum coverage of $200,000 per person and $500,000 in general aggregate. 7) It is the responsibility of the petitioner to file in a timely manner a new insurance certificate with the City Clerk upon expiration of an existing certificate. Failure to do so will result in the revocation of the easements within ten (10) days of notice. 8) The petitioner execute a hold harmless agreement with the City. Seconded by Propp. Motion carried 6-0. II: WASHBURN STREET RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT – Department of Public Works, petitioner The Department of Public Works is requesting approval of several items associated with the reconstruction of a portion of N. Washburn Street that will result in moving a segment of the street south in the Westowne Avenue vicinity. The actions generally involve the following: 􀁸􀀃 Acquisition of Property 􀁸􀀃 Accept Temporary Construction Easements 􀁸􀀃 Acquisition of Access Rights 􀁸􀀃 Dedicate Right-of-Way Plan Commission Minutes -3-December 6, 2005 The purpose of the reconstruction project is to move Washburn Street further away from the STH 21 intersection to provide for improved vehicle circulation and stacking in anticipation of increased vehicle trips due to increased and anticipated commercial development in the corridor. Attorney Jack Kelly, 1 Pearl Avenue, representing Racette Ford, stated this proposal would take 60 percent of the Racette Ford property. He stated this proposal would take away the showroom and although they have explored other options, Mr. Racette doesn’t rent enough land to be able to move the showroom to another part of the property as a result of these severe takings and would most likely have to lease more land at an increased rate. Mr. Kelly stated his client would like the showroom to remain in place and suggested moving the road to the north 40-50 feet so the showroom and parking could remain as is. Mr. Kelly stated they have talked to the City Administration regarding this request and understands the City has talked with their consultants regarding the distance needed for vehicles to be stacked waiting to turn. He stated 300 feet was recommended and a reduction to 250 feet is what they are requesting. He stated he understands the minimum needed for stacking is 150 feet. Attorney Kelly asked the Plan Commission to consider this alternative. He stated this is not a drastic change and not an ideal change, however, they believe it would still provide ample stacking distance. He stated a stop sign was in place for traffic from the west, and did not foresee a stacking problem from the south. Attorney Kelly stated this alternative would also save the City money on relocation expenses. Attorney Kelly also stated Racette Ford would have limited access from Washburn Street and they would like to see a break in the median, although he realizes statutory language might be in place which would restrict the City from implementing this action. Attorney Kelly encouraged the Plan Commission to consider their requests, as the current proposal would have a serious negative impact on Racette Ford and its 70 employees. Mrs. Propp questioned what businesses would be impacted by the relocation of Washburn Street across from Racette Ford. Mr. Kelly stated the land was vacant on the other side of the street. Ms. Mattox questioned who owned the Racette Ford property. Mr. Kelly stated Pommerening Development Corporation owns the land and the building and has leased it to Racette Ford for the last 10 years. Art Pommerening, 237 N. Washburn Street, questioned what would happen to the roadway recently reconstructed. Mr. Patek pointed out on the map displayed the existing road and the area to be reconstructed. He pointed out the portion of Westowne that would become a stormwater detention basin, and noted that Kwik Trip would be removed and surplus property would be offered to the abutting property owners. Mr. Patek also pointed out an additional area for a detention basin for U.S. Highway 41 that needed to be purchased by the Department of Transportation (DOT). Mr. Borsuk questioned if a consultant was used to map the reconstruction. Mr. Patek stated Gremmer & Associates, out of Fond du Lac was one of the consultants used, as they are also working with the DOT on the State Hwy. 21 and U.S. Hwy. 41 projects. Plan Commission Minutes -4-December 6, 2005 Mr. Borsuk questioned if it would be feasible to move the roadway 50 feet to the north. Mr. Patek stated neither the City nor the DOT would support that alternative. He stated it was not a good design and would result in a substandard intersection. Mr. Patek reviewed the stacking distance needed to exit State Hwy. 21, noted the traffic signal located there and the possibility of traffic backing up on State Hwy. 21 as a result of that alternative. Vice Chairman Scherer questioned why the distance for stacking wasn’t extended further if the minimum is being used for this reconstruction. Mr. Patek stated a longer distance wasn’t used as it would have a negative impact on many businesses on Westowne Avenue. He stated it is more ideal to have Westowne Avenue moved to the south. Vice Chairman Scherer questioned if Racette Ford could be allowed an access in the median. Mr. Patek stated traffic along the median is stacking to make a left hand turn onto Westowne Avenue and and to make a right into private property, therefore it wouldn’t be possible. He noted Racette Ford has access from Westowne Avenue. Mr. Thorkildsen questioned if there was only one entrance from Westowne Avenue to the Racette Ford property. Mr. Patek stated the City would be working with Pommerening Development Corporation on revisions needed for the Racette Ford property. Ms. Mattox questioned if this reconstruction would be sufficient for the next 50 years. Mr. Patek stated this reconstruction should be sufficient for the next 25-50 years while the DOT allows a connection to U.S. Hwy. 41. Mrs. Propp questioned if this reconstruction layout has been approved by the DOT. Mr. Patek stated this project is driven by the U.S. Hwy. 41 and State Hwy. 21 DOT projects, and this time frame allows an opportunity to share costs with the DOT. Mr. Patek stated the DOT proposes to finish the Washburn Street relocation by 2009, ahead of the City’s previous schedule for completion in 2010. Mr. Thorkildsen questioned who would be responsible for reconstruction in 50 years, and also questioned the advantages of doing the project now. Mr. Patek stated he didn’t have an answer for who would be responsible for reconstruction in 50 years, and replied that the advantages of doing the project now assists in a designed access to State Hwy. 21. Mrs. Propp questioned the condemnation process and an associated monetary value. Mr. Patek stated this Plan Commission review is the first step, followed by Common Council action, which allows discussions to begin which follows the statutory state law condemnation process. Mrs. Propp questioned if this means that friendly negotiations have failed. Mr. Patek stated all the City’s negotiations are friendly, however, it has to be realized that this project is for the good of the public, and the City is required to follow the condemnation process to establish a time frame for negotiations to proceed. Plan Commission Minutes -5-December 6, 2005 Vice Chairman Scherer questioned if the City has considered closing the connection to State Hwy. 21 at this time instead of some time in the future. Mr. Patek stated that it wouldn’t make sense to close the intersection at this time because of the access needed by the commercial development in the area. He stated this reconstruction should have a 30-50 year value. He stated future reconstruction will be planned when the volume of traffic impacts access to State Highway 21. Ms. Mattox questioned if some of the property involved was in the Town of Algoma. Mr. Patek stated an attachment will be going to the Council December 13th for the second reading of the Washburn/Pommerening Attachment. Mr. Fojtik questioned the impact the reconstruction would have on the Westowne Ave./Westhaven Dr. intersection. Mr. Patek pointed out the stacking distance and reviewed the traffic flow options, noting that this improvement should benefit the community for 10-20 years. David Koone, Krueger Auto Mart, 2061 Omro Road, questioned where the access points were for Krueger Auto Mart. Mr. Patek stated access is not closed to the auto mart, but access will be limited to the Shell Service Station and the Holiday Inn Express. He stated the DOT would eventually buy out the property in the area; however, there will be complete access during reconstruction. Art Pommerening, 237 N. Washburn Street, asked the Plan Commission to consider a relocation of the adult video store to the backside of the lot Lowe’s Home Improvement is considering. He stated Lowe’s is making a 40 million dollar investment and is not happy with the adult video store location. Mr. Thorkildsen questioned what options were available for Racette Ford. Mr. Pommerening stated a total rebuild would probably be necessary as it would be difficult to revamp. He stated few options are available and further discussions are needed with the City Administration. Mr. Fojtik stated although it isn’t an ideal situation for Racette Ford it appears the City has taken into account the best plan of action for as many businesses in the area as possible. Ms. Mattox stated it appears to be good planning for the future. Motion by Borsuk for approval of the acquisition of property, to accept temporary construction easements, the acquisition of access rights, and the dedication of right-ofway for the Washburn Street reconstruction project. Seconded by Thorkildsen. Motion carried 6-0. III: PROPOSED TEXT CHANGE TO MULTIPLE SECTIONS OF CHAPTER 30: ZONING REGULATIONS AS IT RELATES TO MAXIMUM GARAGE SIZE FOR SINGLE-FAMILY AND TWO-FAMILY USES – Wayne Gayhart & Kenneth Rasmussen, petitioners An application for review of the City’s Zoning Code and possible text amendment has been submitted by residents of the city in relation to the allowable garage square footage permitted for two-family uses. The applicants are currently in the process of constructing a two-family dwelling and feel the square footage limit of 1,200 square feet per lot, regardless if it is a single or two-family dwelling, is antiquated and needs to be increased to reflect current vehicle ownership and storage issues. Plan Commission Minutes -6-December 6, 2005 Mr. Borsuk questioned when the Plan Commission was scheduled to review updates for the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Buck stated staff has been working diligently on issues that need updating and will be bringing proposals to the Plan Commission in 2006. Ms. Mattox questioned the amount of space needed for one car. Mr. Buck replied approximately a 12’ x 20’ of garage foorprint was needed for most vehicles. Discussion followed regarding 1200 square feet of garage being available for each housing unit. Marcia Rasmussen, 1915 Knapp Street, stated this is a changing world and the City of Oshkosh is following a code that was adopted in the ‘60’s. She stated the number of cars, recreation vehicles, and maintenance equipment a family needs to store has changed whereby most families need a three car garage with extra storage space. She stated Oshkosh appears to be more restrictive than other communities, and doesn’t feel the request is unreasonable. Mrs. Rasmussen stated the reason for the request came about because they are currently building a two family condo dwelling on the river where no storage sheds are available, and the garage size is limited to single family limitations. She also added that many new developments also don’t allow storage sheds, and a change in the code would benefit the community as a whole. Vice Chairman Scherer questioned if they were allowed to construct a boat house on the site. Mr. Buck stated the DNR needs to approve the construction of boathouses but they are permitted. Mr. Borsuk stated he was sympathetic to the petitioner’s needs; however, he is disturbed by the process, as the requested text amendment should be done as part of a comprehensive review of the zoning code. Mr. Borsuk suggested the petitioner’s submit an application to the Board of Appeals at this time to obtain a variance, with a letter of approval from the Plan Commission. Ms. Mattox stated an update of the zoning code was number one of the 13 priorities of the Comprehensive Plan, therefore, she agrees with Mr. Borsuk that a variance would be the way to proceed at this time until the Plan Commission has a chance to adopt a new Zoning Ordinance in its entirety. Mr. Fojtik questioned what alternatives the petitioners have at this point. Mr. Buck stated the petitioner has been to the Board of Appeals twice, have modified their request and the Board of Appeals approved a total of 1550 square feet of garage space for the 2 family dwelling. Mrs. Propp questioned if the petitioners problem has already been solved. Mr. Buck stated an alternative request had been approved. Mr. Thorkildsen stated he also agreed with Mr. Borsuk and Ms. Mattox that a comprehensive review of the entire Zoning Ordinance was needed, instead of approving individual requests. Motion by Thorkildsen, and seconded by Borsuk for approval to change multiple sections of Chapter 30 Zoning Regulations as it relates to maximum garage size for single-family and two-family uses. Seconded by Borsuk. Plan Commission Minutes -7-December 6, 2005 Vice Chairman Scherer questioned why the City has limitations on garage size, and what the downside to their request would be, as their proposal seemed to have balance. Mr. Buck explained that there is concern of a garage to be bigger than the home, of the size of garages on narrow lots in two family districts, and the design standards where a garage is located in the front of the home to have a negative effect on the neighborhood. He stated there is a parking problem in older neighborhoods in multiple dwelling districts where parking can become an unsightly issue and becomes a problem with enforcement. Vice Chairman Scherer questioned if staff has considered a limit in relationship to the square footage of the principle structure. Mr. Buck stated that has been considered. He explained this text amendment has been recommended for approval as a way to address the problem immediately. Vice Chairman Scherer questioned if it was unusual for the general public to request a change to the zoning ordinance. Mr. Buck stated it was not an unusual request, and staff cannot deny the public’s rights to the request. Mrs. Propp stated she also agrees with Mr. Thorkildsen and will vote to deny the request. She stated she didn’t feel this item was presented well as more information could have been included. She stated there is a need to increase the garage size, although, as long as no other people are waiting for a decision, a more thorough review is needed. Mr. Thorkildsen questioned if the Plan Commission could recommend in favor of a code change to the Board of Appeals. Mr. Buck stated he would need to check with the City Attorney on that issue, however, the item isn’t scheduled for the Board of Appeals another time as a modified request has been approved. Mrs. Rasmussen questioned when the Zoning Ordinance would be revised. Mr. Buck stated the revision to the zoning ordinance will begin in 2006, but may take longer than a year to approve. He also noted each section of the ordinance would be looked at individually, and then the Zoning Ordinance would be approved as a whole. Motion denied 1-5. Nays: Borsuk, Mattox, Propp, Scherer and Thorkildsen. IV: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR A TRUCK STOP FACILITY WHICH INCLUDES USED VEHICLE AND PARTS SALES, VEHICLE REPAIR, VEHICLE WRECKING AND DISMANTLING, AND VEHICLE TOWING AND TEMPORARY VEHICLE STORAGE AT LOREN’S TRUCK PLAZA, 1701 FOUNTAIN AVENUE -Lorenz Rangeloff, petitioner; Alois and Yvette Collins, owners This item was brought before the Plan Commission on May 17 and June 21, 2005 where it was denied, primarily because of the site proximity to Highway 41 and noncompliance with the Highway 41 Corridor site requirements as well as the appropriateness of the use at the site, which is a “gateway” location into the City. Plan Commission Minutes -8-December 6, 2005 Lorenz Rangeloff, petitioner, Alois and Yvette Collins, owners, request approval of a Conditional Use Permit/Planned Development Review for property located at 1701 Fountain Avenue. The petitioner requests to expand the existing truck stop facility use to allow for used vehicle and parts sales, vehicle repair, vehicle wrecking and dismantling, vehicle towing and temporary vehicle storage. The existing single-story structure on site contains approximately 8,800 square feet, comprised of a restaurant, retail space, and auto repair facility. The proposal calls for remodeling of the existing restaurant to allow for a sales/towing office, expanded vehicle repair, and vehicle dismantling and parts storage. The proposal also identifies new open storage and parking areas on site. Mr. Borsuk questioned what the difference was between the current proposal and the previously submitted requests for a Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Buck stated the original proposal had an enclosed storage area that was twice as big as what is currently proposed and this application has no addition to the structure. He stated this application shows a more organized site plan as submitted previously, and the access points have changed. Mr. Borsuk also questioned if condition number three referred to the vehicles owned by the petitioner. Mr. Buck stated that was correct. Mr. Fojtik questioned what the consequences would be if they did not meet all of the conditions upon approval of the CUP. Mr. Buck stated they would receive citations, or they could have the CUP revoked. Ms. Mattox questioned how many cars could be displayed in the used car sales area. Mr. Buck stated there was room for 25-30 cars to be displayed. Lorenz Rangeloff, 2020 Oregon Street, stated the subject site has been historically used as a truck stop and is currently zoned M-1 Light Industrial District. He stated it is currently used as a truck service repair facility, and this use hasn’t ceased for any 12 month period. He also stated he hasn’t received any violations on the site. Mr. Rangeloff stated since the DOT has reconstructed the area to take access away from the truck stop it would never be a good commercial property, although truckers will seek out the facility for repairs or service. Mr. Rangeloff stated the southern end of the property has always been used for truck and trailer parking. He stated he is in the process of purchasing this property and it has been a struggle to keep up the site since he is not the owner. He stated he would own the property by the end of the month. Mr. Rangeloff stated the fenced in area would be used to store cars that are waiting to be repaired or waiting for clearance to be removed from the site. He stated he plans to pave the area. Mr. Rangeloff requested permission to be able to park tow trucks under the canopy as all the trucks are diesel and need to be plugged in during the cold winter months. Plan Commission Minutes -9-December 6, 2005 Mr. Rangeloff next referred to closing the access on Fountain Avenue. He stated he has no problem with closing one access point, only a problem with the timing. He stated there aren’t any solid plans for the DOT revisions, especially with the Hwy. 21 project not scheduled for completion until 2010. Mr. Rangeloff also stated the truck scale has a one way usage, and if the Fountain Avenue access is closed there will not be access to the truck scale, or room for a truck trailer to turn around. Mr. Rangeloff stated the NW corner of the property wouldn’t be seen from the highway when the DOT finishes their reconstruction project. He stated most of the south end of the property is paved and has historically been used for truck parking. He stated cement will be poured for trucks to park on, although he requests for that area to stay as is for now and not pave until he is able to purchase additional land for further development. He stated it is a dust free area for the most part, with trucks pulling in to park, not creating dust. He stated the use of the property is not changing and he requested approval so he is able to move forward with his business plans. Vice Chairman Scherer asked Mr. Rangeloff to clarify what conditions he was not in agreement with. Mr. Rangeloff stated he was not in agreement with conditions 3b, 3c, 3d, and 3e. Vice Chairman Scherer questioned what type of fence was proposed. Mr. Rangeloff stated a solid fence on a berm would be constructed. Mr. Borsuk questioned if he was purchasing land from the same owner who owns Parcel B, and if Parcel B would remain in the owner’s control. Mr. Rangeloff stated the subject area is owned by the same party, and Parcel B would remain in the current owners control. Mrs. Propp asked Mr. Rangeloff to describe the major changes since the last submittal. Mr. Rangeloff stated they are not going to be adding an addition on to the Truck Stop. He stated since he doesn’t own the property, and the current owners have been retired for 6-7 years, the property hasn’t been maintained as best it could. He stated he intends to care for the property and operate his business as long as he is able. Mrs. Propp questioned if there would be any improvements to the appearance of the building. Mr. Rangeloff stated he intends to propose improvements to the building in 2006. Ms. Mattox questioned the time frame associated with temporary vehicle storage. Mr. Rangeloff stated he didn’t know of a definition, however, it takes 30 – 120 days to complete the process for abandoned cars, which is typical for all towing entities. He stated he is not looking for long term storage, he is looking to secure the vehicles towed in and will move them out once he is able to dispose of them. Ms. Mattox asked if that area could be quantified so vehicles didn’t remain in storage for a long period of time. Mr. Buck stated long-term storage would need to be inside. Mr. Rangeloff stated the open storage area was basically for transient type of repairs. He stated it wasn’t an area for accident cars. He stated there would be a 6’ high fence so the general public will not be able to see the vehicles. Plan Commission Minutes -10-December 6, 2005 Mr. Borsuk questioned the use of Parcel B, and if the two uses could be tied together. Mr. Buck stated once a use is established it loses its primary use. Mr. Rangeloff stated he will have more control over the property once he has made the purchase. Mr. Buck stated the CUP request is only for a portion of the site and Parcel B will remain vacant. Mr. Borsuk stated he was concerned about the best use for the property, and questioned a 2 year period for the CUP to be valid. He stated the petitioner’s property on Oregon Street hasn’t been well maintained and feels this would be an undesirable business located in the gateway area to the city. Mr. Borsuk stated the way to mitigate any negative effect this request may have on the surrounding neighborhood would be to require a complete site plan, parking plan, landscape plan and elevations, etc. before he could make a decision. Mr. Borsuk stated he would like to lay the item over until all of these items have been submitted. Mr. Fojtik stated there was a difference between development done in phases and done by piece meal, and agreed with Mr. Borsuk’s concerns and requirements. Vice Chairman Scherer stated Mr. Burich made it clear at previous meetings that complete plans need to be received for adequate review. Mrs. Propp stated she was concerned with the condition of the site and if anything further would be accomplished with laying the item over, since it has already been laid over twice. Ms. Mattox stated what was voted down previously has been circumvented by doing nothing. She stated Mr. Borsuk’s proposal might be the best way to proceed to make a determination of how the development will look. Motion by Borsuk to lay over the item for 6 weeks to enable the petitioner to come back with a complete set of plans including elevations, landscape plan, and operating plan. Seconded by Thorkildsen. Mr. Rangeloff stated he was under the assumption he needed a different site plan, and asked for direction as to what exactly the the Plan Commission was requiring. Vice Chairman Scherer suggested Mr. Rangeloff contact the Planning Division staff for instructions. Motion carried 5-1. Nay: Propp There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 5:48 p.m. (Thorkildsen /Propp). Unanimous. Respectfully submitted, DAVID BUCK Zoning Administrator /Associate Planner DLB/vlr