HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes
PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 4, 2003 PRESENT: David Borsuk, Jon Dell’Antonia, Steven Gehling, Jack Heinemann, Shirley Mattox, Donald Pressley, Kathleen Propp, John Ruppenthal, Cathy
Scherer, Patrick Weston, and Lee Bettes, Chairman STAFF: Mat Tucker, Associate Planner, Kristi Bales, Principal Planner; Jackson Kinney, Director of Community Development 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 October 21, 2003 were approved
as mailed. (Propp/Weston) I: CONSENT AGENDA A: VACATE PORTION OF SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT ALONG W. PACKER AVENUE, LOT 42 SARRES PLAT Kurt Koeppler, petitioner/owner requests the Plan
Commission to review and approve the vacation of a portion of a sanitary sewer easement created as part of the Sarres Plat. The petitioner is requesting to vacate the east 3 feet of
a 30 foot wide sanitary sewer easement which is contained in Lot 42 of the plat. B: ACCEPT PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTS IN THE MARION ROAD/PEARL AVENUE REDEVELOPMENT AREA City Administration
requests the Plan Commission to accept public utility easements in the Marion Road/Pearl Avenue Redevelopment Area. The easements are needed to accommodate the undergrounding of utilities
in the area and generally range from the 9 to 12 feet in width. The easements are being placed along the street edges of redevelopment parcels in the redevelopment area. C: ACCESS CONTROL
VARIANCE TO ALLOW LESS THAN 75 FEET OF LATERAL CLEARANCE AT 3045 N. MAIN STREET A-OK Storage is requesting an access control variance to allow less than 75 feet of lateral clearance
from a public street. The petitioner is proposing to install a fence gate to control access into the property. The gate is proposed to be placed outside of the existing asphalt parking
lot that is approximately 53 feet from edge of the curb line of N. Main Street. The gate restricts lateral clearance and a variance is requested. The subject property is approximately
4.7 acres and contains a mini warehouse facility. Item C was pulled off the Consent Agenda for further discussion. Motion by Borsuk for approval of Items “A” & “B” of the Consent Agenda.
Seconded by Dell’Antonia. Motion carried 9-0.
Plan Commission Minutes Page 2 November 4, 2003 Discussion continued regarding Item C. Attorney Patrick Seuert, 618 S. Green Bay Road, stated over the past year dumping has occurred
on the site. He showed pictures of tires and other debris that has been dumped on the site, and explained how it has also become costly to dispose of the items dumped. He explained how
they hoped the installation of a fence with a gate would discourage dumping activities. Ms. Mattox questioned if this has been a neighborhood problem. Mr. Heinemann questioned what would
prevent dumping on the site if a fence wasn’t installed around the entire property. Discussion continued on how far people would haul debris, and how effective a fence and gate at the
front of the property would be. Paul Zolkoske, Manager of the site at 3045 N. Main St., stated they would like to install a fence around the entire property, however the current proposal
was to put a fence and gate across the front of the property with a power gate opener. Mr. Seuert Seuert stated they know a tandem-axle dump truck has been dumping garbage on the site.
Mrs. Propp asked for clarification of where fencing would be installed. Chairman Bettes stated they were proposing to fence the driveway at the front of the property. Mr. Kinney stated
a chain link fence was shown on the site plan for the north side of the property when the permit was issued for the buildings, to be installed sometime in the future. Ms. Mattox questioned
if they had considered using motion detectors or cameras on the site. Mr. Ruppenthal indicated he rents a storage facility, where operating hours are from 6 a.m. until 10 p.m., otherwise
the gate is locked, Mr. Zolkoske indicated no other security measures are proposed at this time. Motion by Pressley for an access control variance to allow less than 75 feet of lateral
clearance from a public street to install a fence gate to control access into the property at 3045 N. Main Street subject to the following conditions: 1) The gate be prohibited from
opening opening toward the adjacent navigable stream. 2) The gate is to be placed at the edge of the existing asphalt drive and parking area. Seconded by Gehling. Motion carried 9-0.
II: PUBLIC HEARING: 2004-2008 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND 2004 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM ACTION PLAN Staff requests Plan Commission to review and recommend acceptance
of the 2004-2008 Capital Improvement Program and 2004 Community Development Block Grant Program Action Plan. Mr. Kinney introduced the item explaining the Plan Commission will need to
review the programs to determine if there are any conflicts with the Comprehensive Plan.
Plan Commission Minutes Page 3 November 4, 2003 Kristi Bales, Principal Planner, explained the Community Development Block Grant Program Action Plan and the costs involved. Mr. Borsuk
asked where the redevelopment dollars would be spent in the Central City area. Mr. Kinney explained the actual expenditures have not been specified, however the money is allocated for
projects as they come forward. Ms. Mattox questioned if the walk to work program would qualify under this program. Ms. Bales stated the walk to work program would qualify, especially
related to the University of Wisconsin Oshkosh. Mrs. Propp questioned how the community and environmental expenditures differed from the administration and salaries expenditures. Ms.
Bales explained the community and environmental monies would be used for consulting fees. Mr. Kinney added that those monies could also be used for publishing fees for the Comprehensive
Plan for one example and the environmental monies would be used as needed in construction projects where consultants might be needed to evaluate a site. David Patek, Director of Public
Works, continued with an explanation of the 2004-2008 Capital Improvement Program, explaining the 2004 program in more detail. Mr. Dell’Antonia questioned the City portion of the paving
to be done on Witzel Avenue by Winnebago County. Mr. Patek stated this type of project requires the local municipality to be involved. Mr. Borsuk questioned the storm sewer projects
funded in prior years but not constructed as in numbers 2-5 on page 8. Mr. Patek stated he would need to consult with the City Manager as to the funding details. Mrs. Propp questioned
the money allocated for storm sewer construction projects on CTH A north of Butler Ave. east to Sherman Drive, and for the Anchorage Basin Relief Channel. She noted these are rather
large projects and questioned if they were related to a master plan. Mr. Patek stated the City is prioritizing projects according to a master plan that resulted from a study done in
2000, which evaluated the City needs and costs which averaged approximately 25 million dollars. Mr. Patek also stated that regarding the Anchorage Basin Relief Channel, money had been
allocated in 2003, however, an application for funds was submitted to the DNR who will allocate $600,000 towards the project in 2004, therefore it didn’t proceed in 2003. Ms. Mattox
questioned if there would be any state funding for CTH A. Mr. Patek replied that there would be no state funding. Mr. Patek continued with sidewalk projects, traffic improvements, park
improvements and major equipment replacement. Mr. Gehling questioned if there was any value left in the existing equipment to offset the funds allocated. Mr. Patek stated the figures
represented the net cost and not the new cost, as there will be a trade-in to offset the cost of the end-loader for the Streets Department.
Plan Commission Minutes Page 4 November 4, 2003 Mr. Gehling questioned if equipment would be auctioned off. Mr. Patek stated he could only account for the Public Works Department where
most times a trade-in is involved. Discussion followed regarding the cost of replacing major equipment and the reduction of the amount of equipment replaced and the reduction of property
improvements made in 2004. Mr. Gehling questioned the money allocated for the Safety Building Space Study. Mr. Patek stated the money would be used to pay consulting fees for the study
to determine how to best re-utilize the space. Mr. Patek continued with the Tax Incremental Financing (TIF) Property Projects. Mr. Gehling questioned paving done in the Old Mercy Hospital
Site area (TIF #14) before construction was done. Mr. Patek stated they expected construction to be completed in May with paving to be done when the construction was complete. Ms. Mattox
questioned why E. Parkway Avenue was being reconstructed when it has a Paser rating of 5. Mr. Patek explained the TIF plan had called for the reconstruction of the street due to water
main and sanitary sewer construction. Mr. Pressley questioned why carpeting of the Oshkosh Police Department portion of the Safety Building was allocated for when a study was going to
be done to determine how to best re-utilize the space. Discussion followed as to the ownership and possible reuses for the space and the need for new carpeting regardless of the use.
Chairman Bettes opened the public hearing portion of the meeting at this time. Thomas Voelker, 46 W. 17th Avenue, questioned the 17th Avenue pavement project from Minnesota Street to
S. Main Street. He stated part of that area already has new sanitary sewer. He stated he has started a petition and most of the neighbors don’t want the paving project. Mr. Patek explained
when the City fixed the sanitary sewer from north to south on 16th Avenue to 17th Avenue and 18th Avenue to 19th Avenue the block in the middle was missed because major repair was needed
on 17th Avenue and the sanitary sewer would need to run all the way down 17th Avenue to solve the problem on Minnesota Street. Mr. Patek stated because of that they decided to include
the paving project on 17th Avenue Mr. Patek stated they could have stopped on Nebraska Street but they decided to fix the two blocks from Nebraska St. to Doty St. and Doty St. to Main
Street which were also in poor condition. He stated they also took into consideration input they have received from the Common Council to improve poor street conditions in the City.
Mr. Voelker stated he had talked to home owners from Oregon Street to S. Main Street, but not from Oregon Street to Minnesota Street. He stated he has only found one person in agreement
with the paving project. Mr. Voelker also commented on the 32 foot width of the street and the removal of parking on the street. He stated the tavern and the VFW are currently using
the terrace area for parking during special events, and reconstructing the street at a 32 foot width would be too narrow.
Plan Commission Minutes Page 5 November 4, 2003 Chairman Bettes encouraged Mr. Voelker to talk with the Department of Public Works and attend future meetings of the Common Council to
voice his concerns. Mr. Voelker questioned where he was to turn in his petition. Mr. Patek informed Mr. Voelker he would need to get the proper petition form from the City Clerk and
turn it in to her when complete. Chairman Bettes closed the public hearing portion of the meeting at this time. Mrs. Propp stated she would like to see an increase in the budget for
signage. Mr. Patek stated the sign budget was decreased in order to save crossing guard positions. Mr. Borsuk questioned the Jackson Street/Marion Road intersection and the Snell Road
project, assuming they will both be included in the updated Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Patek explained that because of concerns the Jackson Street/Marion Road intersection has been pushed
back to 2007 to allow proper review of the area. He also explained that not all of Snell Road was in the City and they don’t propose to pave town sections. Mr. Borsuk questioned that
considering the amount of lead time for the project why doesn’t the City work with the County to do the entire road. Mr. Patek stated it wasn’t the County but the Town of Oshkosh who
would have to fund the project.Motion by Ruppenthal to approve acceptance of the 2004-2008 Capital Improvement Program and 2004 Community Development Block Grant Program Action Plan
with the finding that listed projects are not in conflict with the City of Oshkosh’s Comprehensive Plan. Seconded by Dell’Antonia. Motion carried 9-0. III: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO
ALLOW AN ANIMAL SHELTER OPERATION AT 1925 SURGERY CENTER DRIVE The Oshkosh Area Humane Society, petitioner for Oshkosh Surgery Center, owner, request the Plan Commission to review and
approve a conditional use permit (CUP) to establish an animal shelter operation at 1925 Surgery Center Drive. The subject property is zoned M-2 Central Industrial District that allows
the establishment of such a use use through CUP. Joannie Geiger 6785 Olen Trail, representing the Humane Society, stated the building has been unoccupied for two years. She stated she
feels they have addressed the noise issues, especially the concern of barking dogs, by locating the kennels in the rear of the building so they won’t be barking at visitors. Mrs. Propp
noted the fence encloses a large area around the south side and questioned if the kennels would be located there. Ms. Geiger stated the large fenced in area on the south side would be
used for an exercise area. She stated the kennels wouldn’t be located there and the kennels wouldn’t be visible to the public. Mrs. Propp questioned the mature trees that would be taken
down. Ms. Geiger stated they are planning on replacing any trees and shrubs that would need to be taken out for the construction of the addition.
Plan Commission Minutes Page 6 November 4, 2003 Mrs. Propp also questioned where the dogs would be contained. Ms. Geiger stated the dogs will be outside during the daytime hours during
periods of good weather, and will be kept inside the remainder of the time. She also noted the building was very sound proof. Motion by Dell’Antonia to approve a Conditional Use Permit
to establish an animal shelter operation at 1925 Surgery Center Drive and find the proposed use of the site to be in compliance with the Standards of Section 30-11 (D) of the Zoning
Ordinance and be issued with the following conditions: 1) The landscaping eliminated by the proposed building addition shall be replaced with similar species and approved by the Department
of Community Development as part of a landscape plan to be submitted with or prior to the building permit application. 2) The proposed fence shall be screened with an evergreen variety
of trees or shrubs in the areas adjacent to the cul-de-sac and along the east property line. Seconded by Borsuk. Motion carried 9-0. Mrs. Mattox was excused at this time. IV: MODIFICATION
TO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A MARINE SERVICE FACILITY, BOAT SALES, AND TO ALLOW TEMPORARY OUTSIDE PLACEMENT OF MARINE EQUIPMENT AT 910 W. MURDOCK AVE Russ Reff, petitioner
for 910 W. Murdock LLC, owner, request the Plan Commission to review and approve a modification to a conditional use permit (CUP) to operate a marine service facility, boat sales, and
temporary outside placement of marine equipment at 910 W. Murdock Avenue. During July 2003, the Plan Commission and Common Council approved a CUP to allow automobile sales and service
at the subject property. Additionally, service of marine related equipment inside the principal structure was approved at the subject property. Mr. Tucker introduced the item, stating
he and Mr. Kinney had discussed the need to test boat motors outside of the building with the applicant earlier in the day. Mr. Tucker noted that the applicant has indicated testing
would be done near the east side entrance of the building, said tests lasting approximately 5-7 minutes. Mr. Kinney stated he would like to amend condition number 5 in the Staff Report
to reflect that change. He proceeded to read the amended condition. Mr. Gehling questioned what was meant by wrecked marine equipment since wasn’t all equipment in need of repair considered
wrecked. Mr. Tucker stated wrecked in this instance meant to be in a dismantled or damaged state. Mr. Gehling also questioned why more landscaping was called for with this modification
request. Mr. Tucker stated since this request included larger vehicles to be placed on site, the landscaping should be reviewed and increased to effectively mitigate the boat repair
parking on the site.
Plan Commission Minutes Page 7 November 4, 2003 Mr. Borsuk questioned if a small portion of the building would be used for marine service. Mr. Kinney stated that is what they have proposed.
Mr. Dell’Antonia questioned the definition of “long term” as it pertained to the storage of boats on the lot. Mr. Tucker stated long term storage would relate to a towing service for
example and not be allowed for a boat service facility which differs from a storage facility. He stated the site would be enforced accordingly. Mr. Dell’Antonia also questioned if there
was a limit to the number of boats placed outside temporarily. Mr. Tucker stated the size of the area designated for temporary placement, along with the size of the boats would dictate
how many boats could be placed on site. Mrs. Scherer questioned the effect this operation would have on Stillwell Avenue. Mr. Tucker stated the boat service area would be located approximately
150+ feet from residences on Stillwell Avenue. Attorney Russ Reff, 217 Ceape Avenue, stated he is representing both 910 W. Murdock LLC, and T & C Mobile Marine. He stated there were
some problems with the last Conditional Use Permit issued. He explained there are three parts of the building, auto sales and service, marine repair, and an area yet to be leased. He
stated the tenants thought they were operating within the conditions of the CUP with placement of the boats on the lot for temporary storage related to the service activities, not long
term storage, however, shortly after the business opened a correction notice was issued, indicating the CUP didn’t cover the outside placement of boats or boat sales, even though the
CUP application had referred to marine repair. He stated he had reviewed the tape of the Plan Commission meeting, and noted most of the conversation was related to landscaping, with
one comment made by staff regarding no boat storage on site. He stated he has discussed the situation with the staff of the Department of Community Development and was recommended to
apply for an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit. Attorney Reff stated the marine service facility has been in operation for three months servicing boats of all sizes with no complaints
from the neighborhood. He stated the businesses have been very courteous to the neighbors regarding parking and landscaping and reiterated that boats would be parked outside on a seasonal
basis only. He stated the marine business was in the heart of its busy season while this review has been going on because of the need to have boats winterized at this time, and they
would hopefully be at this same level of service in the spring, therefore the only condition they were not in agreement with was number 5 on the Staff Report prohibiting any outside
servicing and testing of marine related equipment. He noted that it was necessary for the engines to be outside the building while they were being run due to carbon monoxide issues.
Attorney Reff stated this was a good re-use for the building in a City that is known as Oshkosh on the water. water. He stated this operation has had no more objections than past uses.
He also stated it would be a benefit to the local economy, adding jobs and a viable service. Attorney Reff stated Steve Mugerauer, owners representative, and James Jansen, manager of
T & C Mobile Marine were available to answer any questions the Plan Commission may have.
Plan Commission Minutes Page 8 November 4, 2003 Mrs. Propp questioned how many spaces of outside storage the marine business would be limited to. Attorney Reff stated approximately 15-20
spaces were available, however they would work within the limits set. He stated they wanted to park the boats on the east lot lines and the number of boats to be parked depended on the
size of the boat. He stated the boating season isn’t that long in Oshkosh, and boaters want repairs made in a timely fashion. Mr. Borsuk questioned why testing of boats could not be
done inside. Attorney Reff reiterated that testing of boat engines couldn’t be done inside due to carbon monoxide fumes. He explained water also shoots out of the back of the boat during
testing making conditions for testing inside unsafe. Chairman Bettes questioned if all other service work would be done inside. Attorney Reff stated all other service would be done inside
the building or on the local waterways. Mr. Dell’Antonia questioned if the business had any plans to service recreation vehicles or heavy trucks, or anything else that is not mentioned
in the application at this time. Attorney Reff stated they had no intention to sell or service any recreational vehicles or heavy trucks. Mr. Borsuk questioned if the owners had any
knowledge of a 3rd use for the building at this time, since there was still another area to be leased. Attorney Reff stated they didn’t have a tenant at this time and questioned if they
would have to come back for further review if the third tenant space was to be occupied by a permitted use in this zoning district. Mr. Pressley was excused at this time. Mr. Gehling
questioned if boats would be for sale in the winter season. Steve Mugerauer, 85 Lake Rest Ave., stated there wouldn’t be any boats for sale in the winter as this would pose a maintenance
nightmare. He stated they would most likely have 2-3 boats for sale for the duration of the summer. Mr. Gehling stated he would like a more specified time frame for boat sales identified.
Mr. Kinney stated he would prefer a condition not be made for a timeframe for boat sales. Mr. Gehling stated he would like to see an amendment to condition number four to include the
wording “exclusive of boats for sale”. Mr. Jansen, 955 Nicolet, stated he would not be storing boats for compensation inside because the service space was more valuable than to use it
for boat storage. His business uses facilities in Berlin for boat storage. Mrs. Scherer questioned if any neighbors have complained. Mr. Jansen stated to the best of his knowledge there
have been no neighborhood complaints. Mr. Ruppenthal stated he didn’t feel it was unreasonable to have this use located on Murdock Avenue and agrees that boats waiting to be serviced
should be temporarily placed on the east property line. Mrs. Propp questioned if as many boats as would fit along the east side of the property line would be acceptable. Mr. Kinney stated
that was correct, with the boats placed in a north/south fashion, as depicted on the site plan. Mr. Reff Reff stated parking for the marine use is restricted in its lease to the area
depicted on the site plan.
Plan Commission Minutes Page 9 November 4, 2003 Mr. Dell’Antonia stated he would like to see a couple of conditions added. One condition would be for a maximum of 10 boats placed outside
for servicing. He questioned if the Plan Commission should consider limiting the size of boats. He stated the other condition he would like to add would be for no RV or Heavy Traffic
vehicles to be sold or serviced on site. He also stated he would like clarification of long term as it related to storage of boats in condition number 4. Mr. Jansen stated they were
recently named a Mercury Marine dealer and in the past parts had been back-ordered for 60 days, which could prolong repair time. Mr. Kinney suggested to eliminate the “long term” wording
in condition number four for repair or sale. Mr. Gehling stated he respectfully disagreed with Mr. Dell’Antonia’s first additional condition as it appeared to be too restrictive. He
stated as long as they maintain their business they should be allowed to park as many boats on the site as the designated area will allow. Mr. Heinemann questioned if a car dealership
was limited to the number of cars they could have on a lot. Mr. Tucker stated car dealerships are required to park cars in code compliant parking spaces. Mr. Weston stated he is in agreement
with the amendments made to the conditions, however, he would like to see the “long term” wording eliminated in condition number four, and to allow as many boats on the site as will
fit in the designated area for sales and service. He also recommended the replacement of condition number 5, as Mr. Kinney had suggested. Mr. Kinney stated a site plan could be revised
to show the area where boats would be placed on the site for service or for sale before this item is sent to the Common Council for approval. Discussion followed regarding the number
and location of boats displayed for sale. Mr. Kinney questioned if the applicants were planning on mixing the boat and car sales together. Mr. Jansen stated they didn’t want to mix the
boat and car sales, he desires to use the sales area as depicted on the site plan. Motion by Propp for approval of the modification to a Conditional Use Permit to operate a marine service
facility, boat sales, and temporary outside placement of marine equipment at 910 W. Murdock Avenue with the amendments for conditions number 4 and 5 as discussed to be found in compliance
with the Standards of Section 30-11 (D) of the Zoning Ordinance. Seconded by Borsuk. Mr. Gehling questioned if only three boats were allowed to be displayed along the Murdock Avenue
property line for sale as stated in condition number 7 or as many as would fit in a designated area shown on a revised site plan. Mr. Kinney stated it would remain as written. Motion
by Dell’Antonia to amend the motion by Mrs. Propp to add a condition that there shall be no servicing, storage, or sales of Recreational Vehicles or Heavy Traffic Vehicles on the site.
Seconded by Borsuk.
Plan Commission Minutes Page 10 November 4, 2003 Attorney Reff also suggested that condition number seven not mention the number of boats to be displayed along the Murdock Avenue property
line for sale. Mr. Kinney said revision to condition number seven would be made according to the designated area for boat sales as shown on the site plan. Motion by Dell’Antonia, seconded
by Borsuk carried 6-1. Motion by Propp, seconded by Borsuk carried 9-0 subject to the following conditions: 1) No outside storage of wrecked marine equipment or marine parts. 2) Marine
equipment for servicing be placed in a north to south orientation on the site with the northernmost spaces utilized prior to the southern spaces. 3) Marine equipment for servicing shall
be placed perpendicular to the east property line as indicated on the site plan. 4) No storage of boats that are not on site for repair or for sale, are permitted. 5) Marine engines
may be run for a limited time in an area immediately adjacent to the southerly service bay door on the east side of the building (as noted on site plan), and that any such exterior operation
of marine engines be in compliance with the City’s noise ordinance, and if requested by the Department of Community Development, that exterior engine testing be performed to determine
such compliance. 6) Additional landscaping shall be placed along the east property line as a buffer. Landscaping shall be approved by the Department of Community Development. 7) Boats
for sale may only be placed within the boat sales area as shown on the site plan. 8) There shall be no servicing, storage, or sales of Recreational Vehicles or Heavy Traffic Vehicles
on the site. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 5:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, MATT TUCKER Associate Planner MWT/vlr