HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes
Plan Commission Minutes February 15, 2005 Page 1 PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 15, 2005 PRESENT: Bryan Bain, Steve Gehling, Shirley Mattox, Kathleen Propp, Donald Simons, Jeff Thorkildsen,
John Weinshein, Lee Bettes EXCUSED: David Borsuk, Jon Dell’Antonia, Cathy Scherer STAFF: Matt Tucker, Associate Planner; Kristi Bales, Principal Planner, Darlene Brandt, Recording Secretary
The meeting was called to order at 4:00 pm by Chairman Bettes. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. The minutes of February 1, 2005 were approved as distributed (Simons/Mattox).
I. LAND DIVISION /425 N. Washburn Street Arthur Pommerening, owner, is proposing to create two lots from the parcel at 425 N. Washburn Street. Proposed Lot 1 would be 10+ acres and proposed
Lot 2 would be 8+ acres. Lot 1 contains an existing automobile dealership. Lot 2 is proposed to be sold. The lots are zoned C-2 General Commercial with a Highway 41 Corridor Overlay.
Mr. Tucker noted that staff is recommending approval of the request with conditions. Staff is also recommending another condition be added relative to approval of a cross access agreement.
Attorney Russ Reff, 217 Ceape Ave., representing Arthur Pommerening, noted Lot 2 is proposed to be sold to the Bergstrom Corporation and depending on the outcome of this meeting, the
closing is scheduled for tomorrow. He noted the certified survey map (CSM) meets standards of the zoning ordinance. His client does not have a problem with the conditions of approval,
except for the dedication of additional right-of-way for Washburn Street. He felt dedication of right-of-way at this time is inappropriate and premature without some compensation. To
his knowledge, no plans have been prepared for the widening of Washburn Street. If plans were prepared and approved, property owners are usually compensated for additional right-of-way
that may be required from them. The Zoning Ordinance states that lands may be dedicated or reserved for right-of-way purposes. Atty. Reff stated his client is asking the Plan Plan Commission
to approve the proposed CSM with the condition that the rightof-way be reserved versus dedicated. Mr. Bain inquired if the right-of-way area in question was officially mapped? Atty.
Reff replied yes. Officially mapping a right-of-way would tell a property owner that the area may be widened or improved in the future.
Plan Commission Minutes February 15, 2005 Page 2 Ms. Mattox inquired about the cross access agreement. Will each property have its own driveway? Atty. Reff replied yes, sufficient frontage
exists for each lot to have its own driveway. The cross access agreement relates to internal movement of traffic between the two properties. Mr. David Patek, Director of Public Works,
stated he spoke with Atty. Reff earlier today regarding road right-of-way standards. On the CSM, there is a notation of 50 feet from Washburn Street. That is a setback from the right-of-way,
not the street width. The actual right-of-way needed won’t be determined until Washburn St. is reconstructed. He noted that right-of-way can be obtained before development of a site
or after. Mrs. Propp inquired if any other agreements or acquisitions for right-of-way purposes have occurred in this area? Mr. Patek replied no, nothing at this time. Mrs. Propp inquired
if it is a normal process for the City to acquire right-of-way or does the Dept. of Transportation? Mr. Patek stated the Plan Commission has conditioned other CSM’s or plats requiring
the dedication of right-of-way where there was less than required or to meet Ordinance standards. Mr. Patek noted it is not abnormal to require the dedication of right-of-way. In this
case, however, there is a question on the width. From maps in the Public Works office, it appears Washburn St. is a 40 to 50 ft. right-of-way now. Per the Ordinance, an 80 ft. right-of-way
is required. The DOT standard would be to inform the City they need to obtain whatever right-of-way is necessary prior to street reconstruction. Motion by Gehling to move approval of
the land division as requested with the following conditions: 1) The officially mapped right-of-way along Washburn St. be shown on the certified survey map as reserved for future right-of-way
purposes. 2) On each side of the creek, A 75 ft. wide storm drainage easement be provided from the centerline of the creek. The CSM is to be revised to illustrate this easement and a
separate easement document be recorded at the Register of Deeds office. 3) A cross access agreement between Lots 1 and 2 be approved by the Dept. of Community Development and City Attorney’s
office and filed with the Register of Deeds office, with a stipulation that any changes to the approved cross access agreement be approved by the City of Oshkosh. Seconded by Thorkildsen.
Motion carried 6-0-1 Present (Bettes). (Mr. Weinsheim arrived at this time.) II. AMEND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT /1925 Shelter Court The Oshkosh Area Humane Society is requesting approval
to amend their previously approved conditional use permit to permit shelter related activities on the property east of and adjacent to 1925 Shelter Court.
Plan Commission Minutes February 15, 2005 Page 3 Mr. Tucker stated staff recommends approval of the request with conditions to combine the two parcels into one, no fencing within the
intersection sight distance triangle and submittal of a landscape plan. The landscape plan will also need to address the relocation of the refuse disposal area from 1925 Shelter Ct.
to a location next to the storage building on the lot in question. Ms. Patricia Rock, Office Administrator for the Humane Society, appeared to answer questions of the Commission. Mr.
Gehling noted a big concern would be dogs barking. There are professional office buildings to the east of the lot in question. Ms. Rock stated dogs would be accompanied by a shelter
staff person and would be on leash almost all the time when being exercised in the fenced in area. Ms. Mattox noted there is a berm on the property. Would the fence be placed inside,
outside or on top of the berm? Ms. Rock replied the fence will be constructed on top of the berm. Discussion ensued on landscaping materials and requirements. Mr. Tucker noted the Zoning
Ordinance lists approved landscaping materials and requirements and at a minimum, the proposed landscape plan would need to comply with these standards. Ms. Carol Sullivan, Nigl & Sullivan
CPA, 2001 Bowen St., stated she had a concern regarding where the fence would be installed relative to the berm due to safety reasons. She would prefer to see the fence on top of the
berm. Motion by Weinsheim that the request to amend the previously approved conditional use permit to allow shelter related activities on the property east of and adjacent to 1925 Shelter
Court is consistent with Section 30-11(D), and the request be approved with the following conditions: 1) The two properties be combined as a single legal tax parcel. 2) No fencing may
be constructed within the intersection sight distance triangle of Shelter Court and Doctors Court. 3) A landscape plan be submitted to and approved by the Planning Services Division
prior to issuance of a building permit for the fence. Landscape plan is to include a refuse disposal area detail and shall provide a dispersion of trees and shrubs throughout the site.
The proposed fence area shall be buffered with an evergreen variety of trees or shrubs in the areas adjacent to the east and south property lines. Seconded by Simons. Prior to roll call
being taken, Mr. Bain noted he would be voting Present because he serves on the Humane Society Board. Roll call was taken. Motion carried 6-0-2 Present (Bain, Gehling).
Plan Commission Minutes February 15, 2005 Page 4 OTHER BUSINESS Ms. Kristi Bales noted that the Common Council would be holding a public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan at its March
8th meeting. Hopefully Council will adopt the Plan at its March 22 meeting. The Plan is available on the City’s website. Copies are also available for review at the Library and in the
Planning Services Division office. Copies can also be purchased at the Planning office. Mr. Bettes wondered if the Council wanted changes, would the Plan be referred back to the Plan
Commission or how did Ms. Bales anticipate changes would be handled. Ms. Bales felt if the Council only wanted minor changes, that shouldn’t be a problem. However, if changes would be
requested in any of the top 13 priority areas/issues, she would prefer the Council refer it back to the Plan Commission. Ms. Bales noted she will communicate this request to the Council.
Mr. Simons inquired if Plan Commission members should attend one or both of the Council meetings? Ms. Bales noted either meeting would be an opportune time for input from citizens. There
was discussion on recent letters to the editors in the local media outlets regarding riverfront walkways/paths and developments along the riverfront and why the riverfront wasn’t being
kept accessible for public access. Ms. Bales pointed out that the Marion Rd./Pearl Ave. Redevelopment Plan called for riverfront walkways/paths and as lots are being sold, the City is
retaining land for walkways/paths or requiring easements to maintain areas for public access. Mr. Weinsheim noted the draft Comprehensive Plan also includes multi-use trail maps that
will be referred to as developments occur. Mr. Bettes wondered how best to inform citizens of what is happening in the community – through Plan Commission meetings, the Department of
Community Development, responses to letters to the editor, the City’s web site? However it is accomplished, he felt better communication is needed. There being no further business, the
meeting adjourned at approximately 4:58 pm (Bain/Simons). Respectfully submitted, MATT TUCKER Associate Planner