HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes
PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 6, 2005 PRESENT: Lee Bettes, David Borsuk, Thomas Fojtik, Steven Gehling, Shirley Mattox, Cathy Scherer, Donald Simons, Jeff Thorkildsen, John Weinsheim,
and Jon Dell’Antonia, Chairman EXCUSED: Kathleen Propp STAFF: Darryn Burich, Director of Planning Services; Kristi Bales, Principal Planner, David Buck, Associate Planner and Vickie
Rand, Recording Secretary The meeting was called to order at 4:00 p.m. by Chairman Dell’Antonia Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. The meeting minutes of August 16, 2005
were approved as mailed. (Scherer/Simons) Unanimous. A: ACCEPT RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION (EDISON DRIVE) – Department of Public Works The Department of Public Works requests the acceptance
of right-of-way (Edison Drive) for a strip of land intersection with Fountain Avenue on the south. The dedication is requested to place sanitary sewer and water utilities that were installed
in a City right-of-way. The utilities were installed to replace failing wells and wastewater treatment facilities for the mobile home park and other residential properties in the vicinity.
B: GRANT EASMENTS S. OF 448 N. MAIN STREET, WIOUWASH TRAIL, ALGOMA BLVD. & W. MURDOCK AVE. AREA – Wisconsin Public Service, petitioner WPS is providing or upgrading service for the referenced
locations and is requesting an easement to install utility lines in City owned property for placement. In the case of 448 N. Main Street, the building is currently undergoing a renovation
and an upgraded service is required. In order to provide the service, the lines must be placed within a City owned parking lot (Main Lot) and therefore an easement is requested. For
the Algoma Boulevard properties, WPS is relocating the gas service due to deteriorating conditions and WPS would like to underground the service within a segment of the WIOUWASH Trail.
C: EXTRATERRITORIAL THREE LOT LAND DIVISION FOR PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT 589 CLAY ROAD IN THE TOWN OF NEKIMI – National Survey & Engineering, petitioner, Gregory and Debra Debra
Hyde, owner The applicants are requesting a three-lot land division/certified survey map involving two parcels of land totaling approximately 36.28 acres of land generally located at
589 Clay Road in the Town of Nekimi. The purpose of the land division, according to the application, is to split the house from the balance of the property. Dedication of right-of-way
is also included along Clay Road and CTH Z.
Plan Commission Minutes -2-September 6, 2005 D: APPROVE HOUSING PROJECT AT 600 MERRITT AVENUE (MARION MANOR) – Oshkosh Housing Authority The Oshkosh Housing Authority is proposing bonding
to refinance debt and undertake improvements to modernize its existing facilities at Marion Manor located at 600 Merritt Avenue. Modernization activities are limited to improvement of
existing units and common spaces within the facility. Wisconsin Statutes require that the Plan Commission approve the project by Resolution prior to the issuance of bonds for such a
project, which is being requested at this time. There was no discussion on Items “A” – “D” of the Consent Agenda. E: ACCESS CONTROL VARIANCE FOR A 40 FOOT WIDE DRIVEWAY AND 65 FOOT WIDE
CURB CUT AT 2550 S. WASHBURN STREET – Fox Cities Construction, petitioner, Richard Kohlhoff, owner Mr. Bettes requested Item “E” to be pulled off of the Consent Agenda. Motion by Thorkildsen
for approval of the Consent Agenda Items “A – D” subject to the following condition for item “C”: ITEM C: 1) Incorporate Lot 2 into Lot 3 and revise CSM to a two lot CSM or designate
Lot 2 as an outlot. Seconded by Borsuk. Motion carried 9-0. E: ACCESS CONTROL VARIANCE FOR A 40 FOOT WIDE DRIVEWAY AND 65 FOOT WIDE CURB CUT AT 2550 S. WASHBURN STREET – Fox Cities Construction,
petitioner, Richard Kohlhoff, owner The property at 2550 S. Washburn Street is currently under development for a new 20,000 square foot retail store. In order to facilitate better traffic
flow into their site they are requesting to construct a driveway that is 40 feet wide and has a 65 foot wide curb cut at the pavement whereas the Access Control Ordinance currently limits
the property to a 30 foot wide driveway opening and a 40 foot curb cut. Mr. Bettes stated this is a high volume area and there has been no discussion of traffic control associated with
the driveway and curb cut in this location. He questioned if anyone was present to discuss how this traffic will be handled. Mr. Burich stated that because of the median that ends approximately
at the north end of the driveway it would appear to be difficult for larger vehicles with trailers to make a left hand turn to the property with a 40 foot wide curb cut. Mr. Bettes questioned
the number of lanes in and out of the parking lot. Mr. Burich stated there were 2 lanes to the north and 2 lanes to the south.
Plan Commission Minutes -3-September 6, 2005 Mr. Thorkildsen questioned if this additional width would force reconstruction of the median. Mr. Burich stated the driveway would stay to
the south of the median. Mr. Borsuk questioned the timing of the request as the basement had already been poured. Chairman Dell’Antonia stated the issue was the width of the driveway.
Mr. Bettes stated the traffic in this area also travels at a faster speed than in other areas and more information is needed in order to make a decision. Motion by Bettes to layover
the item for two weeks. Seconded by Thorkildsen. Motion carried 9-0. II: LAND DIVISION /CERTIFIED SURVEY MAP /CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT /DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW /ACCESS CONTROL VARIANCE
AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF N. MAIN STREET AND W. MURDOCK AVE – Millennium Architects, petitioner, Bros. LLC, owner The applicant is requesting three actions relative to the development
of a new bank on the subject property. The first action involves a two-lot land division to create the parcel on which the bank will be located. The second action involves approval of
a development plan for the parcel due to its location in a Planned Development Overlay District. The third action that will be considered as part of the development plan review involves
the approval of an access control variance for a 3 lane, approximately 40 foot wide, driveway access to Murdock Avenue. Mr. Gehling referred to condition number one under the Recommendation
for the Conditional Use Permit /Development Plan Review in the Staff Report and questioned where the compliant setback area was for the sign. Mr. Burich pointed out on the map displayed
that the sign could be placed within compliance on the corner of N. Main Street and W. Murdock Avenue. Mr. Borsuk stated he would like condition number two under the Recommendation for
the Land Division /Certified Survey Map to be stricken. Mr. Borsuk also asked for justification of condition number 5 under the Recommendation for the Conditional Use Permit /Development
Plan Review. Mr. Burich stated it was a design standard issue to get more of a natural look to the detention basin. Mark Huddleston, Transportation Director, City of Oshkosh, stated
he was available to answer any questions the Plan Commission may have. Mr. Borsuk questioned if Mr. Huddleston considered the potential development to the north of the bank when writing
this report. Mr. Huddleston stated he had taken future development into consideration when estimating traffic volumes. Mr. Gehling noted the plantings at the driveway at Kentucky Street
and Murdock Avenue that block the view when exiting onto Murdock Avenue and questioned if it would be good practice to apply a site triangle regulation to this area. Mr. Huddleston replied
that it would be wise to apply a site triangle regulation at this driveway.
Plan Commission Minutes -4-September 6, 2005 Discussion followed regarding the problems encountered at the existing driveway at W. Murdock Avenue and Kentucky Street, the restrictions
that could be put on the proposed driveway, the City’s authority to install a median if necessary, the current traffic counts, the possibility of cars backing up on Murdock Avenue and
the design for traffic to exit onto N. Main Street. Mark Dillenburg, Millennium Architects, 2737 S. Ridge Road, Green Bay, stated they would be glad to work with the City to ensure a
vision triangle is in place. Andy Dumke, 2030 Menominee Drive, stated that only half of the amount of square feet available in Lot 1 is developable compared to the Pick ‘N Save Store.
He stated he envisions a traffic flow from the grocery store to N. Main Street. Mr. Dumke also stated another grocery store cannot be located there, and also that a bank generates a
lot less traffic than a fast food entity. Chairman Dell’Antonia questioned what further restrictions were were placed on the area. Mr. Dumke stated there were a lot of restrictions and
he would have to look over the agreement to be sure, however, he stated a 40,000 square foot building was the largest size that could be placed on the lot. Mr. Dumke also stated he always
enters the site off N. Main Street as he likes to avoid the traffic on Murdock Avenue. Mr. Borsuk referred again to condition number 5 as recommended for the Conditional Use Permit regarding
the design of the detention basin, stating he would like to strike that condition until such time as standards are created. Mr. Borsuk also requested striking condition number 8 as recommended
for the Conditional Use Permit regarding a cross access agreement between Lots 1 and 2 to be approved by City Administration and recorded at the Register of Deeds Office. Discussion
turned once again to the access to Murdock Avenue. Chairman Dell’Antonia questioned if a right hand turn only would be warranted. Mr. Weinsheim stated good design standards have been
used in the design of the drive-thru. He stated with a right hand turn only customers may have to make a circle to get back to where they need to go. Mr. Weinsheim also stated he had
no issue with the future cross access agreement between Lots 1 and 2. Mr. Bettes questioned what standards were used regarding the design for the detention pond. Mr. Burich stated wetland
standards were applied to the detention basin. Mr. Bettes stated since this is a PD area, plans for the development of Lot 1 will need to come through the Plan Commission for review
and therefore he is not worried about access to N. Main Street at this time.
Plan Commission Minutes -5-September 6, 2005 Motion by Scherer for approval of the Land Division /Certified Survey Map subject to the following conditions: 1) Per the Department of Public
Works, provision of a 20 foot wide storm sewer easement along the south property line of Lot 2. 2) Removal of the proposed driveway and abandon driveway verbiage on the face of the CSM.
3) Illustrate both cross access areas on the CSM. 4) Approval by City Administration of a cross access agreement between Lots 1 and 2 to be recorded at the Register of Deeds Office.
5) Statement on the face of the CSM indicating that the driveway access from N. Main Street is temporary and will be relocated within one year of approval of a development plan for Lot
1; and approval for a Conditional Use Permit as the Development Plan is found to be in keeping with the Standards of the Planned Development Overlay District, Section 30-33 of the Zoning
Ordinance, and the CUP Standards, Section 30-11 of the Zoning Ordinance subject to the following conditions: 1) Proposed sign be re-located to a compliant setback area. 2) Proposed sign
for the development to be a ground style/monument sign with landscaping. 3) Trash enclosure location is approved with materials used for the enclosure to be consistent with materials
used in the principal building’s construction. Final approval of the trash enclosure to be granted by the Department of Community Development. 4) Building elevations and construction
materials to be similar to submitted documents with final approval by the Department of Community Development. 5) Detention basin design and landscaping to be approved by the Department
of Community Development with no limestone rock visible above the waterline. 6) Decorative style lights to be used with final approval by the Department of Community Development with
a maximum height of 24 feet. 7) N. Main Street driveway access is to be abandoned within one year of approval and development of Lot 1 to the north. Abandoned area to be landscaped consistent
with with the approved landscape plan. 8) Approval by City Administration of a cross access agreement between Lots 1 and 2 to be recorded at the Register of Deeds Office. 9) Maintain
site triangle standards with a maximum of a 24” height within 20’ of the driveway; and approval of an access control variance to provide for a 3 lane, approximately 40 foot wide driveway
access to Murdock Avenue. Seconded by Simons. Motion carried 9-0.
Plan Commission Minutes -6-September 6, 2005 III: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL TO PLACE ANTENNAS AT 736 ALGOMA BLVD (CLEMONS HALL) – U.S. Cellular, petitioner, University
of Wisconsin-Oshkosh, owner U.S. Cellular is requesting a conditional use permit/development plan approval to allow placement of rooftop antennas on Clemons Hall. The purpose of the
antennas is to provide cellular service to U.S. Cellular clients. The University is zoned with a base residential district where commercial type antenna mounts and towers are not permitted
under the base district standards so a base standard modification is being requested to allow placement. Mr. Bettes questioned the reason for recommendation of condition number four
in the Staff Report. Mr. Burich stated condition number four is needed to provide documentation of whether more antennas could provide service from this location, or if another location
is needed. Mr. Weinsheim stated he liked the idea of wrapping the antennas in vinyl that matches the exterior building materials. Mr. Burich stated he is looking for the antennas to
blend into the environment. Ms. Mattox asked for an example of a side of the building mount. David Buck, Associate Planner, City of Oshkosh, stated antennas have been placed inside brick
walls or wrapped in vinyl. He stated new buildings are being constructed to accommodate the need for antennas. Mrs. Scherer stated she remembered only one other request for antenna placement
coming before the Plan Commission, and that was for Nelson Hall. Mr. Burich stated antennas are allowed in nonresidential areas; therefore not all placements need Plan Commission and
Council approval. Ms. Mattox noted that many more companies might be coming forward with this type of request and the City should have design standards in place. She noted the worst
placement of antennas was on the Mainview Apartment building, which destroyed the skyline. Mr. Bettes stated the University has displayed high standards for design and the City has trusted
their judgment in the past. Ms. Mattox questioned what other options are available. Mr. Buck stated in his past employment with the City of Green Bay they have worked with the petitioner,
case by case, to place antennas in the best possible location for the area, wrapping them in vinyl, or with new construction antennas have been incorporated into the building. He also
stated some companies like to use steeples, and used the example of a cross used on a steeple to hide antennas. Tom Bethea, U.S. Cellular Corp, 2720 N. Dayton Street, Chicago, stated
they had no problem with 3 of the 4 conditions as recommended in the Staff Report. He encouraged the Commission to approve the request as filed since he feared blending the antennas
into the building would degrade the service. He stated condition number one was a new concern since meeting with staff. Mr. Bethea stated as far as aesthetics were concerned their initial
proposal was for 3 arrays of antennas which has been reduced to a single array.
Plan Commission Minutes -7-September 6, 2005 Mr. Bethea stated unlike Nelson Hall, where the cables go up the outside of the building there will be no visible evidence of cables. He
stated the only people who will notice the antennas are the students and staff of the University. Mr. Bethea stated other people have little knowledge of the antennas placed there. He
stated U.S. Cellular would be getting a very little return for their investment if they were required to comply with condition number one. Mr. Gehling questioned if there was any foreseeable
interference that would be encountered from the antennas. Mr. Bethea stated they have not experienced interference with any appliances since the 80’s. Tom Sonnleitner, Vice Chancellor
of Administrative Services, UW-Oshkosh, 800 Algoma Blvd., stated he has not received any complaints from antennas on Nelson Hall and requested condition number one to be stricken. Mr.
Borsuk questioned if the University is planning for antennas in the future development of their master plan so antennas will be visually hidden from the public. Mr. Sonnleitner stated
he would take that into consideration with the new construction of the Wellness Center and new academic buildings. Mr. Gehling questioned if there was a reason for the antennas to be
placed on lower buildings closer to campus. Mr. Sonnleitner stated the Arts and Communications building already had a tower, and another company had chosen to place antennas on a lower
level for better service. Mr. Bettes stated he walks past the subject area every day and has never noticed the antennas, however, he has noticed the cables running up the side of the
building. Motion by Borsuk for approval of the Conditional Use Permit/Development Plan as found to be consistent with Section 30-11 (D) and 30-33 (E) of the Zoning Ordinance subject
to the following conditions: 1) A base standard modification is granted per Section 30-35 (J)(4) of the Zoning Ordinance to allow antenna placement of 6 (six) antennas in a residential
zoning district. 2) Documentation shall be provided that the antennas meet Federal Communication Commission (FCC) Emission Regulations. 3) Documentation be provided by a professional
R.F. engineer that confirms either the co-location possibilities on the building or the buildings inadequacy to locate additional telecommunication facilities. Seconded by Gehling.
Plan Commission Minutes -8-September 6, 2005 Chairman Dell’Antonia questioned what happens to the antennas when they are abandoned. Mr. Sonnleitner stated there is wording in the contract
for the equipment to be removed in a determined number of days. Mr. Fojtik questioned what would happen if the buildings would be renovated on which the antennas were located on. Mr.
Sonnleitner stated they would work with the company to relocate them to a suitable location. Motion carried 9-0. IV: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL FOR PYLON SIGN PLACEMENT
AT 2010 JACKSON STREET – Jones Sign Company, petitioner, Dumke Mgmt. etal, owner Jones Sign is requesting a conditional use permit/development plan approval to place a pylon sign in
the front yard setback area for the property located at 2010 Jackson Street where a new commercial strip center is under construction. The request involves placement of a 23’3” tall
132.5 square foot (per side) pylon type sign in the approximate setback along Jackson Street per per the attached diagram (no dimension provided). The structure will have two signs advertising
businesses at the center as well as a message center sign. Sign support structure colors appear to resemble the principle structure on site but actual construction materials (i.e. brick,
EFIS, vinyl, etc.) have not been provided. Rod Fredrickson, Jones Sign Company, 1711 Scheuring Road, DePere, stated the proposed sign is 23’3” tall and discussed the fabrication of the
sign and the colors chosen to compliment the principal structure. Mr. Bettes questioned if amber lights would be used on the message center. Mr. Fredrickson stated amber lights would
be used in text messaging. Mr. Gehling questioned in which direction the sign would be placed. Mr. Fredrickson stated the sign would be placed perpendicular with Jackson Street. Mr.
Gehling also questioned if the materials as described by Mr. Fredrickson were acceptable. Mr. Burich stated staff was looking for materials used in construction of the sign to be similar
to to the building, and that has been accomplished. Mr. Fredrickson stated he had a brick sample, and will also color match the sign with the building. He also stated he had no problems
with the rest of the conditions as recommended in the Staff Report. He noted the landscaping would include low lying shrubs no more than 2’ or so high. Mr. Gehling questioned if there
was an electrical box on the grounds. Mr. Fredrickson stated the electrical work is all being done underground. Motion by Weinsheim for approval of the Conditional Use Permit /Development
Plan as found to be consistent with Section 30-11 (D) and 30-33 (E) of the Zoning Ordinance subject to the following conditions:
Plan Commission Minutes -9-September 6, 2005 1) Overall sign height is limited to 20 feet from finished grade. 2) Pylon enclosure materials to match exterior materials on the principal
structure. Department of Community Development to approve materials prior to construction. 3) Pylons to be centered on the required setback line from Viola Avenue. 4) West edge of the
sign to encroach no closer than 22 feet from the Jackson Street right-of-way. 5) Replace the overstory tree being displaced by the sign’s location with final relocation to be approved
by the Department of Community Development. 6) Landscaping is to be placed around the base of the sign, in beds, with final landscaping to be approved by the Department of Community
Development. Seconded by Borsuk. Mr. Bettes questioned what percent of a sign could be a message center. Mr. Burich stated 100 square feet per side could be a message center according
to the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Fredrickson stated each face is 136 square feet. Mrs. Scherer questioned what page the sign ordinance was on. Mr. Burich stated the sign ordinance was referenced
on page 30-37. Motion carried 7-2. OTHER BUSINESS -CDBG ANNUAL REPORT Kristi Bales, Principal Planner, City of Oshkosh, introduced herself and used a PowerPoint Presentation to summarize
the years’ events that extend from May 1, 2004 – April 30, 2005. Ms. Bales reviewed the funding sources, and expenditures with LMI (Lower to Middle income levels) required to use at
least 70% of the budget. Mr. Simons questioned if it was unusual to carry over an amount greater than the grant. Ms. Bales stated that was quite unusual. Mr. Thorkildsen questioned if
the City risks loosing the money if it is not spent. Ms. Bales stated there was a risk, however, they haven’t lost any funds. Ms. Bales next reviewed the Housing Rehab projects and displayed
the house on Jackson Street in the PowerPoint presentation as one example. Mr. Bettes asked Kristi to refresh the Commission of the approval process for rehab projects.
Plan Commission Minutes -10-September 6, 2005 Ms. Bales explained the make-up of the committee, the time frame of applications taken and the approval process. Chairman Dell’Antonia questioned
what kept them from spending all the money earmarked for the program. Ms. Bales stated there a staff change that kept the City from spending all the money on hand. Chairman Dell’Antonia
questioned what a normal carryover would be. Ms. Bales stated they try to get close to zero. Chairman Dell’Antonia questioned if the City had a need for this program. Mrs. Scherer questioned
how people know the program is available. Ms. Bales stated from December through March cards are distributed at public service agencies throughout the community with information as to
where people can apply for assistance. She also stated ads are placed in the local newspaper with information for people to apply for assistance as well. Mrs. Scherer questioned if there
was an income limit. Ms. Bales stated there are a number of factors to consider when looking at income, including household size. Mr. Burich stated the City isn’t able to help everyone,
but usually starts by targeting certain areas. Chairman Dell’Antonia questioned if staff expected a carryover for 2005. Ms. Mattox stated there seemed to be the need for a public relations
effort to let the people know how this project works. Mr. Thorkildsen agreed. Mr. Weinsheim stated of the 13 Action Items of the Comprehensive Plan it appears as though in some areas
we are exceeding the goals and some areas haven’t even been looked at. He questioned the façade rehab program in particular. Ms. Bales stated the costs involved in the façade rehab program
have skyrocketed and the program was dropped, and most likely it won’t be offered again. Ms. Bales stated the Plan Commission’s role for the CDBG Program for 2006 would be to review
the plan for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. She stated it would be forwarded to the Council November 1st, and to the Department of Housing and Urban Development in March of
2006. Mr. Gehling questioned if the money designated for housing and neighborhood development could be used for items such as lighting and signs. Ms. Bales stated there is some flexibility
for the use of the money that includes lighting and signs among other neighborhood needs. Mr. Simons questioned if the records were audited. Ms. Bales stated the records were audited
annually by the City’s auditors.
Plan Commission Minutes -11-September 6, 2005 Mr. Borsuk questioned if the carryover projected for 2005 could be included in the 2006 plan. Ms. Bales stated they would only be 4 months
into the plan’s calendar year; however, she could perhaps come up with some report on the progress being made. Mrs. Scherer stated there is a need to make more people aware of the program
and the dates to apply for assistance. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 5:52 p.m. (Thorkildsen/Gehling). Unanimous. Respectfully submitted, DARRYN
L. BURICH Planning Services Director DLB/vlr