HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes
PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 3, 2005 PRESENT: David Borsuk, Jon Dell’Antonia, Steve Gehling, Shirley Mattox, Kathy Propp, Cathy Scherer, Don Simons, Jeff Thorkildsen, John Weinsheim,
and Lee Bettes, Chairman EXCUSED: Brian Bain 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 April 19, 2005 were approved as mailed. (Scherer/Dell’Antonia)
Unanimous. I. CONSENT AGENDA A: ACCEPT DRAINAGE EASEMENTS FOR PARKVIEW HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION – McMahon and Associates & Creative Custom Homes, petitioners, D & F Investments, owners The
petitioners are requesting the City to accept two different drainage easements that were required by the Department of Public Works in association with the development of the Parkview
Heights Subdivision plat. The plat was conditionally approved by the Plan Commission on April 6, 2004. The easements have widths of 10 and 25 feet per the attached maps. The easements
are located on properties adjacent to the plat with the consent of the property owner. B: EXTRATERRITORIAL TWO LOT LAND DIVISION/CSM FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF WESTERN
DRIVE AND NORTON AVENUE – William Frueh, petitioner, Gary and Elaine Hanson, owners The petitioners are requesting approval of an extraterritorial 2 lot land division/certified survey
map involving a .62 acre of land located at the southeast corner of Western Drive and Norton Avenue in the Town of Oshkosh. The subject property is located in a single family subdivision
with homes generally located on three sides of the property. The purpose of the land division is to create one extra property for residential development. C: EXTRATERRITORIAL TWO LOT
LAND DIVISION/CSM FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2411 KNOTT ROAD IN THE TOWN OF UTICA – Russell Rank, petitioner/owner Mr. Rank is requesting to divide off a portion his 150+ acre farmstead
in the section to allow the lot with farm related structures to be sold to the leasee of the farmhouse and related outbuildings for dairy purposes. The remainder of the lands will continue
to be utilized for agricultural (cash crop) purposes. Proposed Lot 1 is 10 acres and contains the farm related structures. Proposed Lot 2 is 17.454 acres and is used for agricultural
purposes.
Plan Commission Minutes -2-May 3, 2005 Russell Rank, 248 County Rd. FF, stated he was available to answer any questions the Plan Commission may have. Ms. Mattox questioned if the reason
for the land division was to be able to lease the land for farming. Mr. Rank stated he owns the land and has leased it out for the last 3 years and will continue to lease the land. He
stated the land isn’t farmed for cash crops, but to support the dairy farm as nourishment for the animals. Mr. Dell’Antonia questioned if Mr. Rank was proposing to sell the parcel with
the buildings. Mr. Rank stated he would like to sell the parcel with the buildings on it, and lease the rest of the land to the new owner for support of the dairy farm. Motion by Weinsheim
for approval of the Consent Agenda. Seconded by Dell’Antonia. Motion carried 9-0. II: PRELIMINARY PLAT – CASEY’S MEADOW SUBDIVISION Chet Wesenberg, petitioner, Thomas Rusch, owner The
petitioner is proposing a 105 lot Preliminary Plat for property generally located north of Sawyer Creek, South of W. 9th Avenue, east of Clairville Road, and west of Oakwood Road. The
request involves one parcel totaling approximately 41.05 acres of land. The property is zoned R-1 Single Family Residence District. Mr. Burich introduced the item noting additional conditions
to be met upon approval of the preliminary plat. Mr. Gehling questioned if condition 5 was a standard condition for preliminary plats or was there some lots that do not meet the minimum
average lot depth requirements. Mr. Tucker stated he didn’t know of any lots that condition may apply to, however, it was a standard condition he included because of the wetland issue
in the area. Mr. Simons stated he was concerned about the amount of additional traffic in the area. Mr. Burich stated he had talked to the Transportation Director, Mark Huddleston, who
informed him that a traffic count had been done in 2003 on the corner of Ruschfield Drive and Oakwood Road, and found that 101 vehicles used that intersection between 7 & 8 a.m. and
the intersection can accommodate approximately 300 vehicles per hour. Mr. Simons questioned if the neighborhoods were designed to handle the additional traffic. Mr. Burich stated it
was natural for the residents to be concerned, however, the streets in the Meadows on Sawyer Creek Subdivision can handle the increased traffic. Mr. Gehling questioned if there was any
way to accelerate the southerly connection to Clairville Road. Mr. Burich stated they can’t require the developer to create the southerly connection on Clairville Road within a specific
time frame, but they can encourage it.
Plan Commission Minutes -3-May 3, 2005 Mr. Gehling questioned if there were any jurisdictional issues between the City and Town of Algoma regarding the Concept Plan for the First Addition
to Casey’s Meadow. Mr. Burich stated the property in the First Addition to Casey’s Meadow would be brought into the City before it would be developed. Chuck Hable, 3071 Mockingbird Way,
stated he had three concerns. He stated he is a paramedic with the Fire Department and strongly agreed that renaming Ruschfield Drive was very important for emergency services. He stated
the northern lots are all designed with the minimum required width of 63’. He handed out two maps, (on file in the Department of Community Development) one that showed the square footage
of the lots and one that showed the width and depth of the lots in “The Meadows On Sawyer Creek Subdivision.” He stated the Preliminary Plat of Casey’s Meadow shows no continuity in
the neighborhoods. He stated some lots are 63’ wide while others were 75’ wide and a few were 80’ to 90’ wide. He stated 75’+ was o.k., however, he didn’t approve of the 63’ wide lots.
He stated it didn’t show a good flow of lot sizes within the plat. He stated Pheasant Creek and Fairfax Street were developed according to the minimum lot sizes and most lots have a
detached garage because of the small lot size. Mr. Hable also expressed concerns about Outlot 1, and the creation of a pond to collect water which would have sitting water at all times.
He stated there are at least 80 children in the area and believed the pond would be a magnet for the children. He was also concerned about the odor of stagnant water and the creation
of a mosquito breeding ground. Steve Grey, 1531 Wellington Drive, stated he is also concerned about the increased traffic, and the safety of the children in the development. He stated
a lot of children use the foot bridge and the traffic is already to fast in the area. Chairman Bettes questioned how many children use the foot bridge and trail to get to school. Mr.
Grey stated hundreds of children in the area use the foot bridge and trail. He stated with no curve in Ruschfield Drive the traffic flows faster than it should, and there are no traffic
signs at the intersection of Wellington Drive and Mockingbird Way. Mr. Grey stated he is also concerned about filling in a portion of the floodplain. He stated water already rises in
backs yards on Sawyer Creek Drive and questioned if this would raise the level of water and increase the swiftness of the current of Sawyer Creek during heavy rains. He stated he agreed
with Mr. Hable regarding Outlot 1. He questioned what it was dedicated to the public for. He stated he was concerned about drainage in the area. He stated many residents in The Meadows
On Sawyer Creek Subdivision have storm sewers in their back yards to deal with the water and questioned what would be done in Casey’s Meadow Subdivision. Chairman Bettes questioned if
there was flooding during the heavy rainfalls in 2004. Mr. Grey stated there was flooding and a bridge also needed to be repaired because of the flooding. Russell Corcoran, 3150 Sawyer
Creek Drive, stated the water comes up 200’-250’ on their property every spring. Chairman Bettes questioned if their house was safe. Mr. Corcoran stated it was constructed per the wetland
guidelines and was not affected.
Plan Commission Minutes -4-May 3, 2005 Mr. Grey stated smaller lots sizes would increase the amount of impermeable surface that will affect the amount of water runoff from the subdivision.
He stated the buildable space, when considering the flood plain, would be small. He stated the area between 9th and 20th Avenue’s attracts young families with school age children and
he questioned if this new subdivision would place a burden on the school district and City services. Mr. Grey stated that Mr. Burich had showed him a layout for a development off of
Ryf Road, which was a good example of a progressive subdivision with ample green space and a variety of lot sizes to include condominiums, which are all issues of the Comprehensive Plan
that he doesn’t see in Casey’s Meadow Subdivision. Mr. Grey stated neighborhood aesthetics are important. He stated Casey’s Meadow will be fairly limited in regard to the style of housing
that can be constructed, and the lots don’t offer much outdoor living space. He stated without without the option for other builders to construct homes in the area the variety of house
styles would be limited. He asked if there could be a buffer between Casey’s Meadow Subdivision and The Meadows on Sawyer Creek Subdivision. Mr. Grey stated the average lot size in The
Meadows on Sawyer Creek Subdivision is 85’ in width. He stated he works at Bemis, and they are constantly bringing in new people for various levels of employment and he is embarrassed
to note that 1/2 of the new people brought in don’t relocate in Oshkosh because Oshkosh doesn’t offer a diverse housing market or the recreation and entertainment options that Appleton
does. He stated he is aware of the progress Oshkosh is making in that regard, but with housing, choice is a factor and a diverse style of housing is needed. He questioned how long a
60’ minimum lot width has been required. Mr. Tucker stated a 60’ lot width has been the minimum requirement since at least 1987 and probably earlier. Mr. Grey also stated an article
he had seen recently compared the average home size of 1,300 square feet in 1950 to 2,000 square feet in ‘2000, approximately a 50% increase. He also noted Appleton has a minimum lot
width of 70’. He also read from a newspaper article written by Professor Michael Burayidi of Urban Planning from UW-Oshkosh, that states “in the current subdivision every 4th house has
the same design and the most prominent feature is the garage. Developers tell us we have choices but our choices are limited and come with sacrifices. If the current urban development
continues the next generation will be inheriting an urban form which is unsustainable. We have the resources to change this trend. We need more citizen planners to make their voices
heard.” Mr. Grey stated progress is being made downtown, however, a change in the suburban/urban subdivisions are needed as well. He encouraged developers to follow the goals listed
in the Comprehensive Plan for subdivision development. Tony Duff, 3151 Sawyer Creek Drive, stated he is concerned about drainage of the new subdivision and agrees with other speakers.
He stated 2004 was the worse year of flooding he has ever seen in that area. He stated the creek was actually a river 200-250’ wide. He urged the developers to seriously consider the
drainage and the level of the creek for all the residents who live on Sawyer Creek Drive. He stated he was also concerned about the speed of the traffic on Sawyer Creek Drive and Ruschfield
Drive. He stated he works with the police department and they have a standard detailing on Ruschfield Drive running radar on a trailer. He also asked for clarification of how long it
would be before they see a steady stream of vehicles from Casey’s Meadow.
Plan Commission Minutes -5-May 3, 2005 Chairman Bettes stated that this is a preliminary plat and the Department of Public Works requires that no more water runoff of the parcel than
before it was developed, therefore the developer has designed Outlot 1 to deal with the water. He stated a drainage plan would need to be approved by the Dept. of Public Works. Chairman
Bettes stated the Plan Commission could approve the final plat once all the subdivision criteria has been met. Chairman Bettes stated they are critically concerned with flooding in the
Sawyer Creek area and he has also noticed yards manicured to the creek, where that land should not be altered. He stated everyone needs to do their part in protecting the area. He urged
the residents to come back when the final plat is brought forward to the Plan Commission to hold them accountable for any issues they have concerns with. Mr. Duff referred back to the
traffic issue stating he would like to encourage an access on Clairville Road or possibly 20th Avenue as soon as possible. He also stated an island is located near the intersection of
Ruschfield Drive and Oakwood Road, and suggested its removal to make room for heavy truck traffic. Mr. Duff also questioned if the trail would be extended along Sawyer Creek. Chairman
Bettes stated the Parks Director was in the audience and could respond to that issue. Mr. Corcoran stated that lot 53 has a width of 55 .19 in the front of the lot and a width of 61.00
in the back of the lot and questioned if that was in compliance with the subdivision requirements. He also asked if the City would consider a change in their policy to allow a concrete
road to be installed prior to the construction of homes in the area to keep the dust and noise out of developed areas such as is done in other Cities such as Madison. He also asked if
covenants for the subdivision would include the installation of a minimum number of trees or the size of homes to be constructed. Mr. Duff also commented on the island near the Ruschfield
Drive and Oakwood Road intersection stating that currently there is not room for 2 cars to be able to turn different ways and removing the island would be beneficial for the neighborhood.
Joy Himmler, 3110 Sawyer Creek Drive, also expressed her concerns with the additional number of vehicles exiting on Oakwood Road. She stated there would be a serious backup of cars,
and people who live in the 2nd and 3rd lot on Ruschfield Drive would have a hard time getting in and out of their driveway. She stated the island has been a problem already and heavy
construction vehicles would make the problem worse. She stated she understands that the intersection can handle the traffic but the residents won’t like it. She stated a 9th Avenue exit
is also available but noted that Pheasant Creek was in bad repair and it was more logical for traffic to come up Sawyer Creek Drive to exit on Oakwood Road. She questioned how many other
subdivisions had only one point of ingress or egress with the same number of vehicles estimated. She also stated her concerns about the traffic moving to fast on Ruschfield Drive with
a straight expanse of road where a lot of children use the trail off of Ruschfield Drive to get to school. She thanked the Commission for answering other questions she has had. Chet
Wesenberg, petitioner, 3162 Hayward Avenue, stated he was available to answer any questions the Plan Commission may have. Mrs. Propp questioned if Outlot 1 was designed for drainage
purposes. Mr. Wesenberg stated a retention pond is designed for that area.
Plan Commission Minutes -6-May 3, 2005 Mr. Dell’Antonia questioned what additional points of ingress and egress were planned. Mr. Wesenberg stated that Ruschfield Drive would exit on
Clairville Road in the future and Mockingbird Way would line up with Windsong Terrace. He stated the owner of the land in that area is interested in coming into the City and creating
a connection with Mockingbird Way. Chairman Bettes questioned what the general time frame was for development of the 2nd plat. Mr. Wesenberg stated that would depend on the market. He
stated the lots that abut Sawyer Creek would probably be the most desireable, and when those are sold they would be able to move further to the west to make the connection with Clairville
Road. He estimated that to happen in approximately 3 years. Mr. Wesenberg agreed there would only be a couple points of ingress/egress until the development progresses. He stated to
offset streets would possibly slow down the traffic, but not reduce the amount of traffic. Mr. Wesenberg stated that Pheasant Creek will be completed this summer and that will give vehicles
at the corner of Wellington another option for exiting the subdivision. Ms. Mattox asked if there would be any covenants in the subdivision to control the terraces. Mr. Wesenberg stated
there would be covenants, however, they haven’t addressed them at this point. Ms. Mattox questioned if Mr. Wesenberg was the sole developer and if all the houses would be built by his
company. Mr. Wesenberg stated he was an architect and Rusch Homes and himself would be controlling the lots. Chairman Bettes questioned what steps Mr. Wesenberg was taking to protect
Sawyer Creek. Mr. Wesenberg stated a lot of work has been done to protect Sawyer Creek. He stated Outlot 1 will be a retention pond and there is also a linear pond designed along Sawyer
Creek to catch water. He stated they have been addressing the flooding issues very thoroughly. Kurt Pemsteiner, 3171 Sawyer Creek Drive, questioned if Mr. Wesenberg was excited about
this subdivision with minimum lot sizes constructed close to his home. He stated Rusch homes are small, and they all look the same, with the garage in the front, and add no character
to a neighborhood. He stated he has lived in Oshkosh all his life and grew up in a neighborhood where there were a variety of house designs and nice sized lots. He stated this subdivision
was a downgrade for Oshkosh and questioned if street widths would be the next thing to increase in size. Chairman Bettes stated there is a diversity of lot sizes in this subdivision.
He stated it is the Plan Commission’s role to try and create a diverse amount of housing stock and the developer in this case has chosen to plat his subdivision with the minimum amount
of land consumed. Mr. Bettes stated many Township developments are wasting land with such large lots. He stated parks are needed in the area. He also stated the Developer has the right
to build according to the demand of the market and if that means with the minimum lot size the Plan Commission will allow it. Tom Stephany, City of Oshkosh Parks Director, pointed out
on the map displayed where the trail would be asphalted this summer and also talked about where a boardwalk would be constructed in the floodplain area. Chairman Bettes questioned if
there would be picnic tables or benches along the trail.
Plan Commission Minutes -7-May 3, 2005 Mr. Stephany stated the trail was to be a passive nature area that would extend all the way to Clairville Road. He stated a park was tentatively
planned in an area to the north. He stated a rule of thumb the City follows is to have a neighborhood park within a half a mile from every house. He stated 4-8 acres is needed for a
neighborhood park. Chairman Bettes questioned what was required when planning for a park before the entire area is developed. Mr. Burich stated officially mapping an area for the park
and a design for the park would need to be created. Chairman Bettes questioned how much money would go into the park fund from this plat. Mr. Burich stated with 105 lots a total of $21,000
was required. Chairman Bettes questioned the average price of a neighborhood park. Ms. Mattox questioned what the parkland dedication fee was per house. Mr. Burich stated the parkland
dedication fee was 200.00 per house. Mr. Stephany stated an average cost of a neighborhood park is approximately $12,000. Mr. Simons questioned if the developer was required to provide
money instead of land. Mr. Burich stated the developer could be made to provide either the land or money. Discussion followed regarding if there was enough money for two parks, if money
needed to be earmarked for a park before it is built, a total of $212,000 was currently in the park fund, what other parks were located in the surrounding area, the need to officially
map the park and the importance of acquiring parkland as an area is developed, to be able to negotiate the park boundaries. Mrs. Scherer questioned why an active park was not planned.
She stated Carl Traeger is o.k. but not for all ages. Mr. Stephany stated that Carl Traeger was a good example of a neighborhood park, although it didn’t include tennis courts or restrooms,
which would be considered for the new parks developed in the area. Mrs. Mattox questioned if benches were a feature of a passive park. Mr. Stephany stated benches would be placed on
the trail and they have also planned for benches to be placed in a scenic overlook area. Chairman Bettes questioned how the surrounding neighborhood residents could get involved in planning
features for the trail or park. Mr. Stephany stated a letter would be mailed in the near future inviting neighbors to participate in picking out playground equipment and various features
for the park. Mr. Dell’Antonia questioned if the Plan Commission could require larger lot sizes, if they had the authority to say how many lots could be developed before requiring another
access point, or if the Plan Commission could require the streets to be paved sooner than required by the Subdivision Regulations. Mr. Burich stated that he did not think the Plan Commission
could require such conditions because the plat is in compliance with the Subdivision Regulations. Mr. Borsuk questioned if it would be in the City’s best interest to officially map Windsong
Terrace at this time for a future connection. Mr. Burich stated the petitioners concept plan has a 66 foot width reserved for future right-of-way purposes, and should be officially mapped
if it hasn’t been already reserved for right-of-way.
Plan Commission Minutes -8-May 3, 2005 Mr. Borsuk stated residents need to be aware of requirements in the Storm Water Ordinance. He stated retention and detention ponds are created
to slow down the rate of water flow. Mr. Borsuk stated a standard answer needs to be given regarding these areas. He stated developers are doing what they are required to do in regard
to what property can be developed according to wetland regulations. Mr. Weinsheim questioned if there was a standard formula used to figure an average daily traffic count to determine
the level of services. Mr. Burich stated he believed the Transportation Director or Public Works may have such data. Mr. Weinsheim stated the City needs developers to be aware of goals
of the Comprehensive Plan in regard to housing designs, and the curvature of streets. He stated it would be good to be able to connect streets earlier and to have the streets paved earlier,
as he feels 3 years from the approval of the final plat is to long of a time frame. Mr. Burich again referred to the Subdivision Regulations. Chairman Bettes questioned when revisions
to the Zoning Ordinance would be made, now that the update to the Comprehensive Plan is complete. Mr. Burich stated revision work should start sometime this year. Mr. Dell’Antonia questioned
if the Common Council could make changes. Mr. Burich stated that an Ordinance change would be required. Mr. Thorkildsen questioned if the retention pond would be dry at times, or if
an aerator was required to keep the water from getting stale. Mr. Burich stated a retention pond is designed to be wet. Discussion followed regarding homeowners associations to set standards
in that regard and the State and Federal mandates for stormwater run-off. Mr. Simons questioned if the City informs the school district about new subdivision development so they can
plan accordingly. Mr. Burich stated there was an ongoing exchange of information with the school district. Mr. Simons questioned who had authority as to what can be planted on the terrace.
Mr. Burich stated covenants would cover the terrace, as that is not regulated by the Subdivision Ordinance. Mr. Gehling stated current market trends force the style of a subdivision.
He stated the developer takes a risk on the costs of the development vs. the rate of return he will see. He stated people need to understand that owners have the right to develop property
as they see fit, and to develop affordable property for all income levels and noted that this subdivision has a variety of lot sizes. He stated the City has minimum standards to follow,
and although it is nice to receive input property owners do have rights even when it may not seem to be the most popular choice. He stated developers respond to a free market system.
Chairman Bettes stated in order to approve this preliminary plat the Plan Commission needs to determine if sufficient services are available. He stated traffic flow seems to be an issue,
and questioned if they could include an additional condition upon approval to add another connection should the proposed connections prove to be inadequate.
Plan Commission Minutes -9-May 3, 2005 Mr. Burich stated they could look at the level of services when the final plat is brought forward. He stated they would work with the Transportation
Department to determine the impact on traffic flow. He stated the subdivision would be developed in phases with a connection made to Clairville Road within 3-5 years. Discussion continued
on the difficulty of developing this parcel due to Sawyer Creek creating a wall to 20th Avenue, the obligation of the City to install signage for speed control or to put in speed bumps,
and the timeliness of selling lots on Sawyer Creek to get another connection made to Clairville Road. Motion by Borsuk for approval of a 105 lot Preliminary Plat known as Casey’s Meadow
Subdivision generally located north of Sawyer Creek, South of W. 9th Avenue, east of Clairville Road, and west of Oakwood Road, subject to the following conditions: 1) A grading and
drainage plan be submitted and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to acceptance of the final plat. Proposed 100-year floodfringe filling shall be reviewed and approved
by the Department of Community Development and Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources as part of the grading and drainage plan review. 2) The street name of “Ruschfield Drive” be
changed to another name, to be approved by emergency service providers and the Department of Community Development. 3) Provide the standard 20’ radius at all street intersections. 4)
Provide all easements necessary for utility, drainage, and infrastructure needs as required by the Department of Public Works. 5) Verbiage on the plat for Outlots #1 and #2, stating
”dedicated to the public” be eliminated unless agreements between the City and the developer are in place to accept these dedications. 6) The remaining portion of the lands in the parcel
to the southwest of the proposed plat be identified as “Outlot 3.” 7) Maintenance vehicle easements will need to be provided to the proposed storm water pond outlets for the southerly
storm water pond. 8) Field delineate wetland in Outlot #2 prior to final platting. 9) Provide a 15’ wide pedestrian access easement along the side lot lines of 40 and 41 or 39 and 40.
Seconded by Weinsheim. Motion carried 7-2. Nays: Dell’Antonia and Mattox.
Plan Commission Minutes -10-May 3, 2005 OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Borsuk suggested the Plan Commission look at exterior design standards for commercial facilities, not to the extent that they
would give up their corporate identity, but to keep the architecture in line with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Gehling stated he values input from the community, however,
he suggested a time limit be put on their comments. Chairman Bettes stated that topic has been considered before, and they recognized that the same people are not here every week, and
the residents need an outlet to express their concerns. Discussion followed regarding the need for citizens to talk with the Common Council, and appearing before the Plan Commission
first may result in less time spent at Council meetings. The need for the Chairman to take control when many people have the same concern was also discussed along with the few times
that people have long presentations, and if there was a
limit it could always be extended. The importance residents place on their property was also an issue to consider, and the general public’s understanding of the role of the Plan Commission.
Mr. Dell’Antonia questioned if the subdivision plan discussed previously could have been denied requiring the developers to come back with another plan. Mr. Burich stated the Plan Commission
needs to review the subdivision to determine if the Subdivision Regulations have been met. He stated it could only be denied if all standards haven’t been met. Chairman Bettes stated
election of officers would be held at the next meeting for a new Chairman and Vice Chairman, and also for a Public Community Liaison. He questioned how the Commission would like to handle
the elections. Mr. Dell’Antonia suggested a nomination committee. Mr. Borsuk stated he would head up the committee and Mr. Dell’Antonia offered his assistance. There being no further
business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 5:57 p.m. (Dell’Antonia/Scherer). Unanimous. Respectfully submitted, DARRYN L. BURICH Planning Services Director DLB/vlr