HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes
PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 21, 2004 PRESENT: David Borsuk, Steve Gehling, Shirley Mattox, Kathleen Propp, Cathy Scherer, Donald Simons, Jeff Thorkildsen, John Weinsheim and W.
Lee Bettes, Chairman EXCUSED: Bryan Bain, and Jon Dell’Antonia STAFF: Kristi Bales, Principal Planner, Susan Kepplinger, Principal Planner, Darryn Burich, Director of Planning Services,
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 minutes of the December 7,
2004 meeting were approved with corrections as noted for pages 1 and 2. (Gehling/Simons) Unanimous. I: CONSENT AGENDA A: EXTRATERRITORIAL 4 LOT LAND DIVISION ALONG SAND PIT ROAD IN THE
TOWN OF OMRO – McMahon Associates, petitioner, Kirkhafer Revocable Trust, owner The petitioners are proposing a 4-lot extraterritorial land division along Sand Pit Road in the Town of
Omro. The request involves creating an additional 3 buildable lots from two parcels of land totaling approximately four acres with one parcel containing a single family dwelling at 4072
Sand Pit Road. B: VARIANCE TO SECTION 30-73 (J) SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS REGARDING STORM DRAINAGE AND GRADING PLAN – Thomas Rusch, petitioner The petitioner received approval from the
City to develop the 7th Addition to Fox Chase Subdivision in 1997. As part of the approval process, the petitioner submitted a stormwater grading and drainage plan that was approved
by the Department of Public Works. Upon approval of the Final Plat and Development Agreement the developer constructed improvements for the subdivision but did not fully implement the
grading and drainage plan as approved by the Department of Public Works. Mr. Borsuk asked for item “B” to be removed from the Consent Agenda for further review. Mr. Gehling questioned
what the difference was between Item “A” and Item III since they were both extraterritorial land divisions, and one was recommended for approval and one was not. Chairman Bettes stated
he would like to ask ask if anyone in the audience wished to speak on Item IA before the Plan Commission got into a discussion. Priscilla Kieckhafer, 702 E. Irving Avenue, stated they
initially bought the land along Sand Pit Road to add onto the farm. She stated the house is on the northern lot and the previous owner had purchased the property with an additional 3
acres to the south and built a garage over the lot line of Lot #2, therefore they had it resurveyed to get it into compliance. She stated they were getting older and have maintained
the land for 30 years, however, they want to sell the land for development at this time since the sewer is in the area.
Plan Commission Minutes -2-December 21, 2004 Ms. Mattox questioned why they desired to divide the land into parcels of 37,000 square feet. Mrs. Kieckhafer stated dividing the land in
this manner would result in each parcel being approximately 1 acre with trees on each lot. She also stated they have been paying taxes on the land for the past 30 years. Mr. Gehling
again questioned what the difference was between Item IA and Item III. Mr. Burich stated each request needs to be reviewed separately as to how it would impact the surrounding area and
its consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and future city growth. Mr. Burich stated it doesn’t appear that this land division would have a negative impact on the City in the future.
Motion by Scherer for approval of the 4-lot extraterritorial land division along Sand Pit Road in the Town of Omro. Seconded by Simons. Motion carried 9-0. B: VARIANCE TO SECTION 30-73
(J) SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS REGARDING STORM DRAINAGE AND GRADING PLAN – Thomas Rusch, petitioner Mr. Borsuk questioned who was responsible for verifying if the grading and drainage plan
had been completed as required. David Patek, Director of Public Works, 215 Church Avenue, stated they work with the developer, and have made changes to the Developers Agreement that
a building permit can’t be taken out until the drainage and grading plans are complete. Mr. Borsuk questioned the time lag between the completion of the drainage and grading plans and
the building permit. Mr. Patek stated it could be several years since homes are not always built right away. Mr. Borsuk questioned if the occupancy permits had been issued before the
drainage plan was completed. Mr. Patek stated that two different departments are involved and are both looking at different things. Ms. Mattox questioned if this change in the new development
was a substitute for what was originally needed along Newport Avenue. Mr. Patek stated that a detention area was needed in the new development and additional detention was being added
due to the error made in the 7th Addition to Fox Chase Subdivision, along Newport Avenue. Mrs. Propp questioned if the Department of Public Works has changed the requirements once they
were aware of what had happened to ensure this wouldn’t happen again. Mr. Patek stated the drainage and grading requirements weren’t changed but the Developer’s Agreement was changed
to include that a building permit would not be issued until all major storm drainage requirements are met, therefore he doesn’t see this happening again. Mr. Gehling questioned how one
detention area could be helpful to another area if its purpose is to collect heavy rainfall in a specific area. Mr. Patek stated the total stormwater would be detained per code because
it is a tributary to Sawyer Creek. Mr. Gehling questioned if the houses along Newport Avenue would be flooded during heavy rains or be taken care of with this solution. Mr. Patek stated
because the back yards of the homes on Newport Avenue will not be used for a detention area the water will naturally flow to Sawyer Creek to drain away. He explained how a larger detention
area
Plan Commission Minutes -3-December 21, 2004 upstream will detain water longer so the creek doesn’t swell to the point it would negatively affect the homes on Newport Avenue. Ms. Mattox
questioned if the proposed detention area in the new development would be larger than usual, if there were design standards the City followed and if the area would be big enough for
a neighborhood park. Mr. Patek stated the detention area will be larger, and design standards instituted by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) are followed. He also stated the
subdivision is still being designed and there were many issues to look at with the Department of Community Development and the Parks Department for a decision to be made regarding a
park. Mr. Borsuk questioned if the change in the magnitude of the detention pond was equivalent to the amount of land that would have been used for a detention area in the rear yards
of the 8 lots on Newport Avenue. Mr. Patek stated the detention pond in the undeveloped subdivision would be somewhat larger and explained how less water would be tempered off the undeveloped
subdivision to help the Newport Avenue area. David Morehouse, 2840 Newport Avenue, stated they have lived there for 3 years. He explained the back yard slops to a low point that leads
to a ditch that flows to Sawyer Creek. He stated the proposal is acceptable to the neighborhood. He stated several properties have put in decks, fences and landscaping and there has
not been any negative impact from not having a detention pond in their back yards. Tom Rusch, 3807 A State Rd. 21 stated he was the developer in this area, and apologized for the mistake
that was made which he has been trying to rectify for the past 1-1/2 years. He stated this proposal should rectify the situation. He stated the equivalent of approximately 10 dump trucks
of dirt was not removed to create the detention area on Newport Avenue. Mrs. Scherer questioned if Mr. Rusch had heard from any other property owners on Newport Avenue, and if the new
subdivision could include a park. Mr. Rusch stated the other property owners prefer this alternative so their landscaping, decks and fences, etc. would not be uprooted. Mr. Rusch stated
he is in the process of developing the subdivision at this time, and not sure about a park fitting into the neighborhood. Discussion followed regarding how the proposed detention pond
would affect the homeowners on Newport Avenue. Mr. Rusch also stated that the heavy rainfall last spring was a good indicator for Newport Avenue, as the subject lots were not negatively
affected by the rainfall. Mr. Borsuk questioned who owned the property to the north. Mr. Rusch stated that property was sold to a church. Ms. Mattox questioned how this situation would
affect the church property, which may have a large parking lot area. Mr. Rusch stated the church would have to have their own plans for water detention.
Plan Commission Minutes -4-December 21, 2004 Carla Huizenga, 2816 Newport Avenue, stated to put a detention pond in the Newport Avenue area at this time would cause 8 homeowners a lot
of money and grief and could be a safety issue for the small children in the area. She stated occupancy permits were issued to the homeowners therefore they went ahead with their landscaping
plans, as they relied upon the City to make sure the area is safe. She stated many of the homeowners might not have bought land in this area if they knew a detention pond was planned
for their back yard. Mrs. Huizenga also stated she has talked to the church regarding the parking lot and lighting associated with it. Craig Dakauskas, 2848 Newport Avenue, stated the
amount of water this spring was a good indicator that this area shouldn’t have any flooding problems. Mr. Gehling stated it appears the area seems to be handling the drainage and the
City is working with the developer in good faith to correct the situation, and has also taken steps to ensure this type of thing won’t happen again. Mr. Borsuk stated that even though
the end result seems reasonable there is still the problem of the grading and drainage plan not being followed through on and multiple building permits issued before the mistake was
found. He noted the purpose for a grading and drainage plan and how this mistake will put additional cost on another development when it is the responsibility of the land owners to take
care of their own runoff and not put the burden on someone upstream. Mrs. Propp acknowledged a mistake had been made by both the City and the developer, but she stated she is satisfied
with the procedures put in place to prevent this from happening again. Mr. Weinsheim stated he understands the plight of the homeowners and efforts of the City, however, he doesn’t see
any type of consequences the developer is given for not following through on his responsibility for an adequate grading and drainage plan. He stated perhaps the Common Council should
consider consequences for the developer in these types of situations. Motion by Simons for approval of a variance to Section 30-73 (J) of the Subdivision Regulations to provide off-site
stormwater detention subject to the following conditions: A. A revised grading and drainage plan be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. B. A deed restriction
be placed on the upstream property to provide the extra detention capacity. Said deed restriction is to be approved by the Department of Public Works prior to recording. Seconded by
Mattox. Motion carried 8-1. Nay Borsuk. II: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT WITH UPPER FLOOR RESIDENTIAL AT 415, 417, & 419 N. MAIN STREET – Megan & Eric Hoopman,
petitioners, John Cunningham, owner The petitioners are requesting a CUP to allow mixed-use structures with first floor commercial space and upper floor residential apartments. The petitioners
are in the process of acquiring three structures at 415, 417, and 419 N. Main Street.
Plan Commission Minutes -5-December 21, 2004 Mr. Simons questioned why this item was before the Plan Commission. Mr. Burich explained that a mixed use development involving upper floor
residential is required to go through the CUP process. Mrs. Propp noted how the building signage was bad and questioned if there were any standards that should be followed. Mr. Burich
stated there are no master uniform signage or design standards at this time. Mrs. Scherer questioned if there weren’t even any requirements for the façade. Mr. Burich stated the City
didn’t own the property and it wasn’t being disposed of so it could not require a façade easement. Mrs. Mattox questioned if there were any tax incentives for restoration of buildings
in a historic district. Susan Kepplinger, Principal Planner, City of Oshkosh, 215 Church Street, stated buildings that are on the National Register of Historic Buildings could be eligible
for money if they meet the requirements. Ms. Kepplinger added that this is a terrific project and one that will be an asset to the downtown. Motion by Borsuk to find the proposed CUP
for 415, 417 and 419 N. Main Street consistent with Section 30-11 (D) of the Zoning Ordinance and be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. Petitioner secures parking in abutting
City parking lot for tenants. 2. Design of renovated second floor storefronts subject to staff approval. Seconded by Gehling. Motion carried 9-0. III: TWO EXTRATERRITORIAL LAND DIVISIONS
ALONG THE WEST SIDE OF CLAY ROAD IN THE TOWN OF NEKIMI – Ron Leichtfuss, petitioner/owner The owner is proposing two extraterritorial CSM’s that will create a total of 6 new residential
building lots and long cul-de-sac street along the west side of Clay Road in the Town of Nekimi. The lots are all approximately 5 acres in size with approximately 50% of each lot area
containing a conservation easement area around a building envelope. The lands are currently zoned A-2 under Winnebago County zoning which allows the creation of residential lots on minimum
5 acre lots. Ronald Leichtfuss, 110 Cimarron Court, stated about 1 year ago he started working on a petition to rezone the subject property of approximately 32 acres from A-1 to A-2.
He stated the Town of Nekimi and Winnebago County felt it wouldn’t be used in an adequate way unless it is developed as 5-acre lots. Mr. Leichtfuss stated he has worked to maintain a
design for open space and walking trails. He stated A-2 Zoning is an agriculturally zoning designation requiring a lot of open space, and even though it is a cluster type development
each lot will be responsible to maintain open space. He stated only one structure will be seen from Clay Road, and this will be an upscale development. He noted a 5 acre wetland woods
in the North West corner and a drainage ditch in the South West corner of lot 1. He proceeded to discuss the layout of the surrounding areas with zoning designation and structures.
Plan Commission Minutes -6-December 21, 2004 Mr. Leichtfuss stated the land was first offered to the adjacent landowners, with no success so he proceeded with this development. He stated
no other improvements have been made at this time, and the land is currently being worked as farmland. Mrs. Scherer questioned who would be responsible for these conservation easements.
Mr. Leichtfuss stated each property owner will have an easement and protective covenants will be initiated. Mr. Gehling questioned 5 acres that were unbuildable, and a drainage ditch
on the south side of Lot 1. Mr. Leichtfuss stated the 5-acre woods and the drainage ditch on Lot 1 make it unbuildable. Mr. Leichtfuss stated he has talked with the neighboring landowners
and there is no opposition to this land division. Mr. Borsuk questioned where the final drainage from this subdivision would end up. Mr. Leichtfuss stated property owners would be responsible
for their own drainage. Mr. Simons questioned how this project got so far along. Mr. Leichtfuss stated as time progressed with the cluster development he had no idea of the City’s jurisdiction
and went ahead getting the required paperwork needed. He stated he considers this County land with no farming. Mr. Burich questioned if this land was farmed this year. Mr. Leichtfuss
stated it was. Ms. Mattox questioned if each parcel would have an access point. Doug Buettner, 2830 W. New York Ave., stated the land division should have come to the City as it was
noticed in the newspaper, however, the City didn’t catch it, and now there is a hardship of a lot of money spent on this project. Mr. Burich stated a notification might have been done
for a zone change but not the land division. Mrs. Propp stated the Plan Commission has been denying this type of development, however, she questioned if they would vote no would the
petitioner be stopped or would he have the right to supena the Plan Commission to testify in court. Mr. Burich stated if the Plan Commission denies the request the lots will still exist
exist and the City will have to decide if they want to take legal action. Mrs. Propp questioned when authorization took place for the Plan Commission to exercise their Extraterritorial
action. Mr. Burich stated that over the last 6 months the Plan Commission has been aggressively exercising their denial or approval over extraterritorial land divisions. Mr. Borsuk questioned
why there were two separate Certified Survey Maps (CSM’s) used to make up 6 lots. Mr. Burich stated that a CSM may contain a maximum of 4 lots otherwise a plat is required. Mrs. Scherer
stated the Comprehensive Plan doesn’t support this type of land division and as a Plan Commission member she won’t support this request, and ultimately it may be up to the courts to
decide.
Plan Commission Minutes -7-December 21, 2004 Mr. Gehling stated it was very unfortunate that so much expense has gone into this project. He stated he is concerned with the coordination
and cooperation between the Townships, the County and the City. He suggested a letter be sent to the architects and developers if the City is going to take a more active role with Extraterritorial
land uses. Mr. Weinsheim stated it is difficult at this time to see how this proposal will fit into City growth. Mr. Simons questioned how this proposal got this far. Mr. Burich stated
the CSM’s did not include a certification for the City to sign and was recorded. He stated the County usually reviews for the City signature but was missed, and the City didn’t have
any knowledge of this project. Mrs. Propp questioned if a process was in place for the County to recognize the City’s jurisdictional area. Mr. Burich replied that a mailing had been
sent to all surveyor’s and Townships. He stated a mistake was made in this case, as there was no place on these CSM’s for the City to sign. He stated the City just found out about this
project. Mr. Borsuk stated he agrees with the previous Plan Commissioner’s comments but stated they must look at what is good planning. He stated he isn’t comfortable with the current
process and forum and stated they need to take a look at the review process to be consistent with the current and future Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Mattox stated this type of development
doesn’t fit into the land use pattern for even 10 years from now. Chairman Bettes stated he wouldn’t support this request. He stated a workshop is needed for agricultural land use not
to remain dormant until the City grows into the area, and not to create a blighted situation either, but allow for Township and County growth. Mr. Gehling questioned if this request
will go to the Common Council. Mr. Burich replied it would not go on to the Common Council for review. Motion by Weinsheim for denial of the proposed land division as it is not found
to be consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan per Section 30-71 (I) (4) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance, as well as Non Agricultural Land Division Criteria 30-71 (M)(5)(b)(I-iv)
for each land division/certified survey map. Additionally, the Land Division will not assist or assure the continuation of the agricultural use of the land per Section 30-71 (M)(5)(a)
and denied under the agricultural land division criteria. Seconded by Simons. Motion carried 9-0. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Borsuk stated a workshop is needed to discuss how extraterritorial
requests blend into “Smart Growth”. Mr. Burich stated he is preparing 1 or 2 workshops on the topic.
Plan Commission Minutes -8-December 21, 2004 Discussion followed regarding the City’s decision making process and the court case that made it possible for City’s to exercise their Extraterritorial
approval or denial, along with the communication between the Townships and the City. Mr. Burich stated the Township and County levels of government know of the City’s process and this
shouldn’t be an ongoing issue. Chairman Bettes suggested inviting the Townships to the workshops. Mr. Burich stated the problem lies with the overall definition of Rural Preservation.
Kristi Bales stated the meeting room will be open 2 hours prior to the January 4th and January 18th meeting for the public to review the Comprehensive Plan. She stated it was up to each
member as to whether they wished to be on hand for the general public’s comments and/or questions. Chairman Bettes stated he wanted time scheduled on the Plan Commission Agendas for
January to allow Ms. Bales to give an update on the Comprehensive Plan. Discussion followed regarding the parallel word construction of the Vision Statements throughout the document
and when the Comprehensive Plan would go before the Common Council. Chairman Bettes questioned where the general public could review the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Bales stated there is
a copy of the Comprehensive Plan at the Library and in the Department of Community Development. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 5:45 p.m. (Weinsheim/Thorkildse
n). Unanimous. Respectfully submitted, DARRYN L. BURICH Planning Services Director DLB/vlr