Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 20, 2004 PRESENT: Jon Dell’Antonia, Steven Gehling, Shirley Mattox, Kathleen Propp, John Ruppenthal, Cathy Scherer and Lee Bettes, Chairman EXCUSED: David Borsuk, Jack Heinemann, Donald Pressley, and Patrick Weston STAFF: Darryn Burich, Principal Planner, Kristi Bales, Principal 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 minutes of the January 6, 2003 meeting were approved as mailed. (Ruppenthal/Dell’Antonia) Unanimous. I: CONSENT AGENDA A: THREE LOT LAND DIVISION/CERTIFIED SURVEY MAP – SW CORNER OF SUNNVIEW ROAD AND ISLAND VIEW DRIVE R.A. Smith and Associates, petitioner for Allen Clark, owner, requests Plan Commission review and approval of a land division/certified survey map (CSM) for a parcel of land located at the southwest corner of Sunnyview Road and Island View Drive. The 1+ acre parcel of land is zoned R-1 Single Family Residence District and contains an approximate 600 square foot garage. The purpose of the land division is to create two additional buildable lots. Allan Garth, 4480 Island View Drive, stated he was the property owner and questioned the condition included in the Staff Report. Mr. Burich stated payment of parkland dedication fees is a recent amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, and it will part of the Staff Reports until developers and surveyors get used to the new requirement. Motion by Ruppenthal for approval of a Land Division/Certified Survey Map for a parcel of land located at the southwest corner of Sunnyview Road and Island View Drive. Seconded by Dell’Antonia. Motion carried 7-0. B: PRIVILEGE IN STREET – W. IRVING AVENUE Gabe’s Construction, petitioner for the Diocese of Green Bay, owner, request the Plan Commission to review and approve a privilege in street for the placement of communications conduit and fiber optic lines in City right-of-way. The petitioner is proposing to bore under W. Irving Avenue and install a permanent 2” conduit and optic lines in the right-of-way. Mr. Gehling questioned the difference between a Privilege In Street and an Easement. Discussion followed on the recording of easements vs. a Privilege In Street and how the City needs to keep track of a privilege in the event a permit is requested for an area where a privilege may exist. Ms. Mattox questioned if a hole would be bored in the street. Mr. Burich explained a hole would be bored under the street. Plan Commission Minutes 2 January 20, 2004 Motion by Dell’Antonia for approval of a Privilege In Street for the placement of communications conduit and fiber optic lines in City right-of-way. Seconded by Gehling. Motion carried 7-0. II: REZONE TWO PARCELS EAST OF 523 W. 11TH AVE FROM R-2 TWO FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT TO C-3 CENTRAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT Landmark General Partnership, petitioner for the City of Oshkosh, owners, request the Plan Commission to review and approve a zone change from R-2 Two Family Residence District to C-3 Central Commercial District. The subject zone change involves two properties located to the east of 523 W. 11th Avenue between 11th and 12th Avenues that was former railroad corridor purchased by the City when rail activity ceased in the corridor. The two properties are each approximately 7,400 square feet with approximate dimensions of 50 feet by 150 feet. Mr. Ruppenthal noted that he recalled an item before the Plan Commission years ago where fiber optic cable was placed in the the right-of-way in front of this property. Mr. Burich stated he would look into that further. Dennis Schwab, stated that he and Ron Detjen have been owners of the property for more than 10 years. He stated they had no immediate plans for the property, but felt it should be kept together and maintained as such. Ms. Mattox questioned what kind of business Pingry-Caswell was. Mr. Schwab stated it was a wholesale industrial supply business. Mr. Gehling questioned if Landmark General Partnership had purchased the property. Mr. Schwab stated they have made an offer contingent upon approval of the rezoning request for the property. Ms. Mattox questioned if there has been any reaction from the neighborhood. Mr. Burich stated that two neighbors have contacted him who are opposed to the rezoning. He stated they might bring a petition before the Common Council in opposition of the rezoning. Motion by Ruppenthal to approve a zone change from R-2 Two Family Residence District to C-3 Central Commercial District. Seconded by Gehling. Ms. Scherer questioned if the neighbors had received notification of the Plan Commission meeting. Mr. Burich stated notices had been sent to the adjacent property owners. Motion carried 7-0. Plan Commission Minutes 3 January 20, 2004 III: RECOMMENDED DRAFT OF THE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE The City is undertaking an update to their 1993 Comprehensive Plan in order to bring the plan in compliance with the State’s Comprehensive Planning Legislation that was signed into law in 1999. Commonly referred to as the “Smart Growth Law”, this legislation established basic requirements for nine elements of a comprehensive plan. These nine elements include Issues & Opportunities, Transportation, Land Use, Housing, Economic Development, Utilities and Community Facilities, Intergovernmental, Agricultural, Natural & Cultural Resources, and Implementation. Chairman Bettes explained to the Commission that they will be voting on a draft copy of the Transportation Element at this meeting that will be used for public comment. He stated the Plan Commission will be voting on the entire Comprehensive Plan at a later date. Ms. Bales introduced the Transportation Element draft with a PowerPoint presentation to show the steps taken to get the document to this point. She outlined the requirements of the documents per the State Statutes. Ms. Bales proceeded to review the goals and objectives as listed on pages 22-25. Mrs. Propp stated that her comments during previous Comprehensive Plan Update Committee (CPUC) meetings regarding the parking utility were directed at reviewing the upkeep of the parking lots and parking meters. Discussion concluded that the review and evaluation of the function and viability of the Parking Utility would remain as written. Mr. Ruppenthal questioned why the City Transit Department used so many large busses as they appear to be under utilized. Mr. Dell’Antonia stated that question has come up before and the reasoning for large busses is that even though they may cost more, they last twice as long as the smaller busses. He suggested Mr. Ruppenthal talk to Mr. Huddleston, the Director of City Transit, to verify that information. Ms. Bales stated that this issue was not part of the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Bales stated that “Goal F” which pertains to Pedestrian and Bicycle Trails does not have one committee that oversees the development but is overseen by several City Departments. Mr. Dell’Antonia noted that he didn’t think the last action noted, to establish Walk-to/Bike-to-Work programs with major employers in the City. Pursue incentives, where feasible, was agreed on by the CPUC Committee. Ms. Bales stated that in December two people on the committee thought it was important, therefore it remained and was given the lowest ranking. Ms. Bales stated that under actions for “Goal H”, the Whistle Ban Policy was recently approved by the Federal Rail Administration and text will need to be adjusted to reflect their action. Ms. Bales proceeded to review the expected timeline to finalize the adoption of the Comp Plan. Mr. Gehling asked Ms. Bales to clarify the maps and also questioned what timeframe was estimated to complete the actions. Plan Commission Minutes 4 January 20, 2004 Ms. Bales used the maps as displayed to clarify the official mapping recommendations. Ms. Bales explained some of the action will be completed sooner than others, however, she estimated a ten year time frame for all actions to be completed. She also stated after the initial actions are done, the implementation committee would prioritize other recommendations. Chairman Bettes asked the Plan Commission how they felt about the plan’s boundaries. Mr. Gehling stated he would like to see wording included to allow the continuation of additional projects should the plan be completed. Discussion followed regarding the Comp Plan being used as a direction in which the City should proceed with development and that projects not included in the plan could still be done. Mrs. Propp questioned the acceptance of the UWO Campus Master Plan. Discussion followed regarding the University’s ongoing effort in updating their master plan. Chairman Bettes stated this action does not endorse endorse the UWO Campus Master Plan but rather the acceptance of the City to work with the University during the implementation of their plan. Mrs. Scherer suggested changing the language in the UWO Campus Master Plan so it doesn’t sound like the Plan Commission or City is putting their stamp of approval on it, but rather say the City will work with the University to implement recommendations of the UWO Master Plan. Discussion followed regarding the language used and the consensus was to change the wording to reflect the City will work with the University to implement recommendations as approved by the Common Council. In was noted this language may be needed in other areas as well. Mrs. Mattox stated she liked the current language. Chairman Bettes stated it was the Plan Commissions responsibility to publish the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Bales stated it would be o.k. to leave the wording as is. She stated the UWO Campus Master Plan is concept only at this time, and the current language reflects that the City would like to work with the University but doesn’t say that it is 100% pleased with the plan. Chairman Bettes stated there would be many more meetings to make these revisions before the final Comprehensive Plan document is recommended for adoption. Chairman Bettes questioned how the general public could get the draft. Ms. Bales stated people can call her at the phone number listed, they could also log on to the City’s web site to get the document without the maps or pick it up at City Hall. Mr. Gehling stated he would like to see language added regarding the objectives and the actions stating that this plan identify’s the immediate needs, but is not limited to all objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Motion by Ruppenthal to approve this draft of the Transportation Element as the document that is forwarded for general public hearings and comments. Seconded by Dell’Antonia. Motion carried 7-0. Plan Commission Minutes 5 January 20, 2004 OTHER BUSINESS Chairman Bettes questioned when the next meeting of the Comprehensive Plan Update Committee would be held. Ms. Bales stated a meeting has been scheduled for Monday, January 26, 2004 at 4:00 p.m. in Room 404 for the Utilities and Community Facilities element. Chairman Bettes also questioned how and when meetings would be held to gain input from the general public. Ms. Bales stated that several ideas have been considered but not finalized, therefore, she welcomed the Commission’s input. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 5:06 p.m. (Gehling/Mattox) Respectfully submitted, DARRYN L. BURICH Principal Planner DLB/vlr