Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 17, 2005 PRESENT: David Borsuk, Shirley Mattox, Kathy Propp, Cathy Scherer, Don Simons, Jeff Thorkildsen, John Weinsheim, and Lee Bettes, Chairman EXCUSED: Bryan Bain, Jon Dell’Antonia, and Steve Gehling STAFF: Darryn Burich, Director of Planning Services; Matt Tucker, Associate Planner; and Vickie Rand, Recording Secretary The meeting was called to order at 4:00 p.m. by Chairman Bettes. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. The meeting minutes of May 3, 2005 were approved with corrections. (Thorkildsen/Simons) Unanimous. I. CONSENT AGENDA A: PRIVILEGE IN THE RIGHT OF WAY TO INSTALL COMMUNICATION CONDUIT IN W. WAUKAU AVENUE – Meyer Services and Oshkosh Truck, petitioners In order to improve telecommunications between separate facilities and parcels involving Oshkosh Truck, Meyer Services is requesting to bore under W. Waukau Avenue and place two four inch PVC communication conduits between 36 to 48 inches below the street surface. The lines will be placed at the direction of the Department of Public Works and will not interfere with any existing or planned infrastructure improvements. B: GRANT 10 FOOT WIDE REVOCABLE NO BUILD EASEMENT ON CITY PROPERTY FOR 126-130 STATE STREET– Charles Williams, petitioner Early this year the petitioner acquired the subject property at 126 –130 State Street that contains the Post Office and approximately 3,360 square feet of additional office space. The petitioner would like to install 3 windows in three offices on the east wall of the building that is adjacent to the City’s Ceape Avenue parking lot. The building has a 0 foot setback to the property line which requires the installation of very costly fire rated windows and frames or alternatively the provision of a revocable 10 foot wide no build easement that will allow installation of a more standard window in the wall. The easement is revocable by the City should it elect to construct a new building in the area of the easement or dispose of the parking lot property in the future. Charles Williams, 128 State Street, stated he would like to install 3 windows that would be able to open, and a 10’ no-build easement would allow that to happen. He stated he is aware it is a revocable easement. Motion by Scherer for approval of the Consent Agenda subject to the following conditions for each item: Plan Commission Minutes -2-May 17, 2005 Item A: 1) The conduits be 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 conduits 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 conduits be the responsibility of the petitioner/owner to correct in coordination with the Department of Public Works. 4) All appropriate permits be obtained prior to the start of work within the right-ofway. 5) The conduits be modified or removed immediately upon the request of the City. 6) The petitioner/owner 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/owner 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 privilege in street within ten (10) days of notice. 8) The petitioner/owner execute a hold harmless agreement with the City. Item B: 1) Easement is subject to review and approval of the City Attorney. Seconded by Thorkildsen. Motion carried 8-0. II: 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 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 to allow for used vehicle and parts sales, vehicle repair, vehicle wrecking and dismantling, and vehicle towing and temporary vehicle storage. The single-story structure on site contains approximately 8,800 square feet, comprised of a restaurant, retail space, and auto repair facility. The proposal also calls for remodeling of the existing restaurant and a 10,500 sq. ft. building addition to allow for expanded vehicle repairs, vehicle dismantling and parts storage. The proposal also identifies new open storage and parking areas on site. Plan Commission Minutes -3-May 17, 2005 Mr. Tucker introduced the item, reviewed the site plan, and discussed the conditions of approval. Chairman Bettes questioned how extensive condition number 4 would be for the petitioner. Mr. Tucker stated it shouldn’t take a lot of extra effort on the petitioner’s part. Mr. Borsuk stated there was mention of plans for an overpass on Highway 41 in the Staff Report and questioned if those plans are far enough along to determine what setbacks are needed. Mr. Tucker stated he hasn’t seen details of the improvement plans for Hwy. 41. Mr. Borsuk also questioned when the stormwater plan would become part of this proposal. Mr. Tucker stated that is handled by the Department of Public Works and we will follow their requirements. Mr. Borsuk questioned if all new construction didn’t need to have a stormwater plan. Mr. Tucker stated not all new construction such as additions or expansions need a drainage plan. Mr. Borsuk questioned if the petitioner had been given any guidance for the design of fencing required. Mr. Tucker stated the petitioner has been informed the fencing needs to be solid. Mrs. Scherer questioned if a professional site plan done by an architect or engineer was required. Mr. Tucker stated those are the requirements. Mrs. Scherer stated it was hard to tell from this drawing the amount of area that would be designated for storage. Mr. Tucker stated the rules for towing operations are unclear, and the review takes into consideration what might become of the property. Mrs. Mattox questioned if the gas pumps would be in use. Mr. Tucker stated they are in storage according to the Fire Departments requirements until they are reactivated. David Winkel, Attorney for Mr. Rangeloff, 36 Jewelers Park Drive, Neenah, stated Mr. Rangeloff has proposed to purchase the property from the Collins. He stated because of the reconstruction of Highways 76 and 45 the property has lost the high volume of business it once had. He stated the character of the property is no longer for a gas or rest area, it would be more suitable for a towing service, parts sales operation, therefore the petitioner is proposing to remodel the restaurant into an area to sell parts. Attorney Winkel stated the petitioner has concerns regarding some of the conditions of approval. He stated that a 2-year CUP/PD would be impossible because of the monetary commitment for the use. He stated they were looking for a longer time frame for the CUP/PD to be in effect. Attorney Winkel stated that in reference to the storage area in the back of the property, his client currently operates a salvage and towing service and is not looking for another salvage yard. He stated his client was looking for a place to store large vehicles because the back of the site wasn’t large enough to maneuver a 110’ vehicle through. He stated they could move regular sized vehicles through that area as needed as they are listed on the City’s rotation list for towing vehicles. He stated they are proposing to fence 2 acres, which is approximately 1/3 3 of the site. Attorney Winkel compared the fenced in area with their competitor on Jackson St., Nolte’s, who doesn’t operate as large of rigs as Mr. Rangeloff. Attorney Winkel stated his client does work for Oshkosh Truck and there are military guidelines to follow regarding a secure fenced area where vehicles are stored before they are shipped out. He stated customer cars also need to be kept in a secure area. Plan Commission Minutes -4-May 17, 2005 Attorney Winkel stated a 7’ high fence is proposed for the front of the site and a 6’ high fence is proposed for the back of the site. He stated the fence will be pre-painted and power coated with supports on the back for strength. Attorney Winkel also noted that the east driveway could possibly be eliminated at some point due to the overpass proposed for Highway 41, but it is not certain at this time and they would hate to eliminate an access at this time when the Department of Transportation will take care of that matter when they need to. He stated they would loose 12 parking spaces with the elimination of that driveway which would leave them with only a western access. He asked the Plan Commission to consider eliminating that requirement. Attorney Winkel also requested the elimination of condition 3c for no towing-related fleet vehicles be permitted to be parked in the front yard area of Green Valley Road. He stated they have proposed the large towing vehicles to be parked there to be visible for truckers to see a service is available. He stated these are nice and expensive trucks. He stated they are asking to be treated the same as their competitor who has large trucks parked on Jackson Street and he submitted a picture showing competitors trucks parked in the front of their lot (on file in the Department of Community Development). Attorney Winkel also made a correction from Mr. Tuckers presentation stating the cross hatched area is a combination of pavement and gravel and the paved area is to the west of that. Attorney Winkel stated vehicles wouldn’t be stored outside until a fence was installed, as there would be ample room for storage inside. He stated his client is proposing to pave 1/4 of the property and it is anticipated to be completed within 6 months. Attorney Winkel stated the addition was going to be constructed away from highway 41 and a 2 tone color building is proposed. He stated his client is aware it doesn’t meet the Highway 41 corridor requirements but this option would allow his client to upgrade the Highway 41 corridor side of the building as he felt that was a more important place to spend money on this investment. Mr. Borsuk questioned if Mr. Rangeloff was proposing to not have the storage area or driveway paved. Attorney Winkel stated his client proposed to keep those areas in their current condition. Attorney Winkel also pointed out the detention area at the northwest corner of the property that is the lowest point, and is the natural way water flows on the site. Mrs. Scherer questioned why his client hasn’t had an architect come up with a site plan and asked if this could be brought back with a more clearer site plan at a later date. Attorney Winkel stated the ordinance requires an architectural drawing, and this site plan was done from a certified survey map with additional information to show the dimensions and fencing. He stated there would be no problem submitting the plan to an architect to be submitted at a later date. He also noted the site has a limited economic potential. Mr. Borsuk questioned if Mr. Rangeloff would accept a condition to join the Cooperative Compliance Program, which is actually a 2 party auditing program for auto salvage provision. Attorney Winkel stated they have no problem with complying with the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) program. Mr. Borsuk stated the Cooperative Compliance Program is over and above the DNR enforcement to show a higher assurance of compliance with environmental issues. He stated it is a demand driven program that has been effective with salvage operations. Plan Commission Minutes -5-May 17, 2005 Ms. Mattox asked Attorney Winkel to explain why a 2 year conditional use permit was to short of a time frame. Attorney Winkel stated this would be approximately a $300,000+ investment for his client. He stated his client wouldn’t be able to purchase the property for a two-year investment. Mrs. Scherer questioned if they were planning to submit a landscape plan. Attorney Winkel stated his client was not planning to change any landscaping on the site. Mrs. Propp questioned if Mr. Rangeloff was planning to use the truck scale and if this would continue to be a truck stop or a repair and towing service. Attorney Winkel reviewed the prior use of the site and stated his client would no longer be offering services to eat, sleep and shower, but more of the towing, less gas sales and less weigh station activities. He stated visually the site wouldn’t change, but the services would. Mr. Weinsheim questioned the signage for a parts facility and stated it looked as though the sign was reused. Attorney Winkel stated they are reusing an existing sign and are not proposing new sign frames. Ms. Mattox questioned the empty sign on the property. Attorney Winkel stated the face plate of that sign had been re-lettered. Yvette Collins, 3821 Candlish Harbor, owner, asked the Plan Commission to consider the requests of the petitioner per Attorney David Winkel. She stated her family operated a successful business for 35 years and they have retired and need to sell the property. She stated Mr. Rangeloff has proposed to purchase the property for a similar use, and encouraged the Plan Commission to carefully consider his request. Jerry Frey, Chairman for the Town of Oshkosh, stated there are drainage problems in the area and the Town of Oshkosh would like to be informed of when the drainage plans are ready for review. He stated Sterns Drive and Fountain Avenue flood frequently during heavy rains. Mrs. Propp questioned where the boundaries for the Town of Oshkosh are. Mr. Frey pointed out the boundaries on the map displayed and reiterated that a better retention area is needed. Mr. Borsuk questioned if this was the best use of land along Hwy. 41 since it is difficult to access the site. He stated he is concerned about the appearance of the site and stated he would be more comfortable if the item was laid over until a detailed site plan could be submitted to determine if this would adapt to the Highway 41 corridor. He also stated the impact of the water runoff and the City’s stormwater retention program needs to be considered, and a layover will give council time to research the Cooperative Compliance Program. Mr. Simons referred to the third paragraph of page 4 of the Staff Report and asked for verification that this proposal was not consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the area. Mr. Tucker stated the report is correct, and that this submittal for an industrial development with incidental commercial activity is not consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Mr. Burich stated a large recycling facility would not meet the Highway 41 corridor guidelines. Mr. Simons questioned if the proposal would comply with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan if the petitioner would comply with the conditions. Mr. Burich stated they would have to comply with the conditions as recommended by Staff to comply. Plan Commission Minutes -6-May 17, 2005 Ms. Mattox questioned who monitors temporary storage as to how long vehicles can stay on the property. Chairman Bettes stated it was basically a complaint driven situation. Mr. Weinsheim questioned if the large truck vehicles would be stored in the same area as the cars waiting for repair or being stored. Mr. Burich stated a detailed site plan needs to be submitted to sort out the usage of the property. Mr. Weinsheim stated similar uses have been reviewed in the last 6 months and it was clear as to what was being stored where. He stated this is an open-ended submittal and is not to scale. Mrs. Scherer stated more detail is needed to justify the appropriate land use along the highway corridor. She agreed with Mr. Borsuk that this item should be laid over, as there are too many unanswered questions for this type of business located along a highway corridor. Mrs. Scherer questioned how the City feels about the fencing proposed. Mr. Tucker stated details of the proposed materials need to be submitted to ensure they would be acceptable for years to come. Mrs. Propp also agreed with Mr. Borsuk to lay over the item. She stated the site has deteriorated and the Plan Commission needs to ensure a viable business will be developed along the Highway 41 Corridor. She stated this doesn’t look like an improvement according to the plans submitted. She suggested the petitioner work with the staff to identify the size of the storage area, and noted the drainage concerns the Town of Oshkosh officers have. She stated the Plan Commission would need to look at this with the same consistency they have used in similar service related proposals. Mr. Thorkildsen stated the staff did a good job of listing the conditions of approval, however they still needed more detail. Mr. Weinsheim stated the burden needs to be put back on the petitioner for the expenses of a quality submittal. Motion by Borsuk to lay this item over until June 21, 2005, in order for the petitioner to submit a professionally prepared site plan. Seconded by Simons. Motion carried 8-0. Mr. Tucker stated the Plan Commission would need to vote on what is submitted at that time to resolve this matter. III: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AT CHRIST LUTHERAN CHURCH, 222 CHURCH AVENUE -Christ Lutheran Church, petitioner/owner Christ Lutheran Church, petitioner/owner, requests approval of a conditional use permit/development plan review for a parking lot expansion at 222 Church Avenue. The 1.4 acre subject property is split zoned between C-3 Central Commercial District and R-2PD Two Family Residence District with a Planned Development Overlay. The R-2PD zone is generally located along the subject property’s W. Parkway Avenue frontage of the property, included in the zoning district covering the residential neighborhood area to the north, west, and east. Plan Commission Minutes -7-May 17, 2005 Ms. Mattox questioned if the City should be concerned about the water runoff since this parking lot is proposed to cover a lot of green space. Mr. Tucker stated the drainage in the area would be improved as the drainage will be directed into an existing storm sewer. Mr. Thorkildsen questioned the setback from the adjacent property owners. Mr. Tucker replied it is approximately an 11-foot setback. Lyle Hayes, 218 W. Parkway Avenue, stated he lives across the street and he and many neighbors object to the proposal. He stated they believe this will lessen the value of their properties. He stated neighborhood children play in the grass area by the church. He also stated he had submitted a petition for the City Council and mentioned names of some of the surrounding property owners who have signed the petition. Robert Spanbauer, 2365 Burnwood Drive, Christ Lutheran Church building and grounds committee representative, stated they were meeting all the landscape requirements and watershed needs. He stated this proposal would actually beautify the area. Mr. Spanbauer stated that during a function held at the church on the evening of May 16th he counted 15 cars parked on either Frederick Street or Parkway Avenue. He stated the installation of 25 new parking stalls should eliminate all of the on-street parking. He stated there shouldn’t be any other traffic problems because there are stop signs posted on each corner in the area. Mr. Simons questioned how many times a week they would estimate the parking lot to be at peak capacity. Mr. Spanbauer stated they hold 1 regular church service on Saturday and Sunday, and 1 on Thursdays during the summer. He stated other meetings are held once a month besides funerals and baptisms, but the parking lot should alleviate all the on-street parking. Mrs. Scherer questioned what landscaping would be installed on the site. Mr. Spanbauer replied that a 5’ hedge would abut neighboring properties with lower landscaping and larger trees throughout the the site. Mrs. Scherer stated this is an appropriate use in this location, and is allowed per the zoning district. She stated she trusts the church will be good neighbors and maintain the landscaping, and she was glad to see drainage problems in the area would be improved. Ms. Mattox stated a lot of inner city churches are having problems because of the lack of parking and the community needs to work together to maintain this service. Motion by Scherer for approval of a Conditional Use Permit /Development Plan Review for a parking lot expansion at 222 Church Avenue to be found in compliance with the Standards set forth in Section 30-11 (D) and 30-33 (E)(3)(b) of the Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval of the parking lot expansion, with the following condition: 1) A landscape plan be submitted to and approved by the Planning Services Division prior to issuance of a building permit for the parking lot expansion. Seconded by Weinsheim. Motion carried 8-0. Plan Commission Minutes -8-May 17, 2005 IV: PRELIMINARY PLAT – EDGEWOOD VILLAGE – Omnni Associates, petitioner, GF Holdings LLC, owner The petitioner is proposing a 152 lot Preliminary Plat for Edgewood Village involving approximately 70.3 acres of land generally located south of Ryf Road and west of Edgewood Road. The property is zoned R-1PD and as such will be required to obtain a Conditional Use Permit/Planned Development Review at Final Plat approval. Mr. Burich introduced the item noting an additional condition should be added for the open space and common facilities maintenance plan to be submitted with the final plat. Chairman Bettes stated according to a prior review he expected to see more sidewalks on only one side of the street. Mr. Burich pointed out areas where they have accepted that proposal. Discussion followed regarding the amount of green space in the neighborhoods, the Bay Homes constructed on one lot, the narrower roads, less on-street parking allowed, and the traffic calming effects of the curved streets making for a friendlier neighborhood with lower traffic speeds. Mrs. Scherer questioned why sidewalks are not required on both sides of the street. Chairman Bettes explained the coving design of the sidewalks provides a connective, safe and efficient pedestrian traffic pattern with an enhanced sense of space and place that results in the park-like streetscape of the neighborhood home’s front yards. Ms. Mattox questioned the condo area, with 5 connecting houses and questioned services. Miriam McCann, 2669 Edgewood Lane stated she lives across the street from the street coming out of the subdivision, noting that it was not shown on the original drawing. She stated she would have problems with headlights and streetlights and questioned the safety of having a street there. Jim Killinger, 2700 Edgewood Lane, questioned what an outlot was. Chairman Bettes stated the Developer could answer those questions. Mr. Killinger also questioned the drainage plan for the area, and if they would have a plan plan before they started platting the area. Mr. Burich stated a drainage plan would be submitted with the final plat. He asked Mr. Killinger to give him a call for a contact name and number. Chairman Bettes stated that the DNR and the City spend a lot of time reviewing the drainage plan before any work actually starts. Fred DeVillers, RHS Companies, Developer, 4400 Science Drive, Madison, explained the drainage designed for the area, the need to maintain the navigable stream, to retain the water in the subdivision, and cleanse the water. He explained water from the front yard runs into the street and water from the back yards will drain into a green space, where the grass will be allowed to grow longer to promote stormwater filtration. He explained how this process would cleanse the water further upstream, slow down the water path, and attempt to keep the site cleaner. He stated they are aware that they are within a few feet of serious watershed problems, and noted the neighbors will not be affected by the runoff because according to the City Ordinance, they are not allowed to have any discharge from the site. He stated the drainage plan should actually improve upon the drainage problems in the area. Plan Commission Minutes -9-May 17, 2005 Mr. Simons questioned if they have done a coving project elsewhere. Mr. DeVillers stated they are working on a coving project in Eau Claire that involves 240 acres. Mr. DeVillers also explained the Bay Homes. He stated these homes are not attached, they are regular single family homes that are smaller and more affordable, in a tighter area, so no shoveling, raking, mowing or maintenance of that nature will need to be taken care of by the homeowner. He stated there is an outlot in the area to collect water that will flow eastward and go into a catch basin under the road and through the ditch into the stormwater maintenance facility. Mr. Simons questioned the 20 foot wide green space in the area. Mr. DeVillers stated this is new to the landscaping industry. He explained that restorative landscaping will be installed, which is plants that would normally grow in the area like wildflowers and grasses will be planted to naturally clean the water, slow the flow of the water down and eliminate the need for homeowners to mow grass in that area. Mrs. Scherer stated that one of the homeowners stated that Southwood Lane was not on the original proposal and questioned why it was designed in at this time. Mr. DeVillers stated old maps showed a long cul de sac in that area, and for life safety purposes it was installed. He also stated during their work with City Staff they recognized the road was originally aligned through a wetland area. They moved the road eastward, but as far to the west as possible. Ms. Mattox questioned how they planned to maintain the green space. Mr. DeVillers stated that the Condo Association and Master Association takes care of the connected green areas. He stated they are designed 8 feet wide for plowing purposes and for trail maintenance. He stated there will be walking trails designed with concrete, asphalt, and screening. Mrs. Propp questioned if the central green would be a traditional park area. Mr. DeVillars stated the homeowners would have a say in the the features of the park, and that a regular park will most likely be available on the school property. Ms. Mattox questioned if the landscape plan included what types of trees would be planted or a schedule for planting. Mr. DeVillers stated there would be requirements in place to have a sense of continuity in the subdivision and they will recommend the types of plantings that are best for the climate and the soil. Mr. Thorkildsen questioned how the ponds would be maintained. Mr. DeVillers stated there would be a maintenance agreement with the Condo Assn. and they will work out an agreement with the City for cleaning every couple of years. He stated they would keep the perimeter edge clean and develop the area with several types of shorelines for attractiveness. He stated there would be a fountain in the ponds to keep the water oxygenated and from developing a stagnant odor. Mr. Killinger again questioned the outlot, the direction of the water flow and the definitiveness of the drainage plan. Mr. DeVillars DeVillars stated they are quite far along in the development of the drainage plan. He stated in regard to the outlot, the water flows south and turns right so the water will not discharge off site. He explained it is the goal of a developer that wherever there is a cut in the land; the same amount will need to be filled in to manage the water and create lots that are sellable. Chairman Bettes encouraged Mr. DeVillers to meet with the neighborhood to discuss their concerns. Plan Commission Minutes -10-May 17, 2005 Ruth Davis, 2597 Edgewood Lane, stated she is also concerned about the water drainage, and expects the amount of traffic in the area to double. She stated there is already a lot of traffic from fisherman heading to and from the boat landing in the winter and summer months. She stated she feared the number of homes and the amount of traffic would result in a decrease of their property value. Mrs. Davis questioned if Edgewood Lane was a City or Town road. Mr. Burich stated it was half City and half Town. Mrs. Davis questioned if the Bay Homes would be constructed in the first phase of the development. Mr. DeVillers pointed out on the map displayed the area that would be developed as part of the first phase. Brad Masterson, 2740 Edgewood Lane, stated at the zoning hearing he understood the street leading to Edgewood Lane would be an access point for emergency services as needed for the first phase and then eliminated because of the crest of the hill and the concern for safety. Mr. Burich stated the Department of Public Works recommends the street connection. Jay Drecktrah, 2611 Edgewood Lane, stated he is also concerned about the street leading to Edgewood Lane. He stated there is a lot of traffic to the boat landing and the north half of Edgewood Lane has been deteriorating since it became part of the City. Mr. Drecktrah also noted the detention ponds are really ponds that don’t have any flow to them therefore they will become very green and be a mosquito bed. He stated the use of fountains would be favorable to oxygenate the water. He stated Lake Butte des Mort is not typically a mosquito habitat. He also questioned the location of a navigable stream. He stated the fields are tiled and water flowed into a drainage ditch. He questioned if a pond would be put in that location to collect water. Mr. DeVillers stated they are not allowed to do anything in the area of a navigable stream. Mr. Drecktrah stated he hopes someone will come and talk to the neighborhood because they are very concerned about drainage issues. Mr. Drecktrah also asked how long of a time frame it would take for this project to develop. Larry Miller, Omnni Associates, pointed out the direction designed for the water flow on the map displayed. He pointed out the navigable stream and discussed the DNR definition of a navigable stream. Jim Erdman, Supervisor for the Town of Oshkosh, stated he appreciated the discussion regarding the drainage and stated it was wise to address the situation now as there may be changes needed as they don’t want abutting homeowners to have flooding problems. Mr. Hayes, 3265 Walden Lane, questioned if Ryf Road was a Town Road or a City Road. Mr. Burich stated Ryf Road had multiple jurisdictions. Mr. Hayes stated Ryf Road might need to be reconstructed into a 4-lane road in the future. Mr. Burich stated they would certainly look at the need as the traffic in the area increases. Jerry Frey, Town of Oshkosh Chairman, stated he would like to be assured he would be included in a meeting with the Department of Transportation regarding lighting and signage on Highway 45. He stated many accidents have happened there and they need to get together to discuss their concerns. Plan Commission Minutes -11-May 17, 2005 Mrs. Scherer stated the preliminary plat appears to meet all the requirements, however, she questioned if contact has been made with the school system and if a park was planned for in the area. Mr. Burich stated the school owns property in the area and a referendum failed a couple of years ago to build a school there. He stated the City is looking at 15-20 acres across Ryf Road for a neighborhood park, and mentioned the WIOWASH Trail was located close to the subdivision. Mr. Simons questioned if the absence of a neighborhood park at this time was reason enough not to approve a preliminary plat. Mr. Burich stated that he did not feel that the plat could be rejected on that basis at this time given the City’s plans to map parkland in the area. Mr. Weinsheim thanked for Town of Oshkosh Officials for attending the meeting to express their concerns at this time. Ms. Mattox questioned if there was a person in the audience from Edgewood Lane who would like to be the contact contact between the developer and the neighborhood. There was a volunteer from the audience who would get together with the developer after the meeting. Motion by Thorkildsen for approval of the 152 lot Preliminary Plat for Edgewood Village involving approximately 70.3 acres of land generally located south of Ryf Road and west of Edgewood Road subject to the following conditions: 1) Building envelopes be illustrated on the Final Plat. 2) Areas identified for “No Parking” be illustrated on the Final Plat. 3) Subdivision covenants be submitted at the time of Final Plat approval. 4) A Conditional Use Permit/Development Plan approval be requested with Final Plat approval. 5) Design standards for the trail and path system be illustrated on the Final Plat or with the CUP/PD approval. 6) Street right-of-way width of 50 feet is permitted with final approval of paving, terrace and sidewalk widths subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. 7) Maintenance of Open Space and Common Facilities Plan to be submitted with Final Plat. Seconded by Simons. Motion carried 8-0. Plan Commission Minutes -12-May 17, 2005 OTHER BUSINESS -Nomination of Plan Commission Officers Mr. Borsuk stated that the three candidates interested in running for Chair included: Kathleen Propp, Cathy Scherer, and Jon Dell’Antonia. Ballots were distributed and a tie resulted between Propp and Dell’Antonia with 3 votes each. A second ballot was distributed to break the tie between Propp and Dell’Antonia. Mr. Dell’Antonia was elected Chairman of the Plan Commission for a two-year term effective June 7, 2005. Mrs. Propp nominated Cathy Scherer as Vice Chairman for the Plan Commission. Seconded by Thorkildsen. Unanimous. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 6.26 p.m. (Dell’Antonia/Scherer). Unanimous. Respectfully submitted, DARRYN L. BURICH Planning Services Director DLB/vlr