Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 17, 2003 PRESENT: David Borsuk, Jon Dell’Antonia, Shirley Mattox, Kathleen Propp, Achim Reschenberg, John Ruppenthal and Lee Bettes, Vice Chairman EXCUSED: Steve Gehling, Jack Heinemann, Donald Pressley, and Donald Krueger STAFF: Darryn Burich, Principal Planner, Susan Kepplinger, Principal Planner, Matt Tucker, Associate Planner, Jackson Kinney, Director of Community Development, and Vickie Rand, Recording Secretary The meeting was called to order by Vice Chairman Bettes. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. The minutes of June 3, 2003 were approved as mailed (Propp/Borsuk). Unanimous. I: CONSENT AGENDA: A: ACCEPT TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT EASEMENTS The City Administration requests the Plan Commission to review and approve the acceptance of temporary and permanent easements associated with the construction of a parking lot behind the west side of the 500 block of N. Main Street. Easements of differing sizes are requested of seven properties located between 511 and 531 N. Main Street. B: PRIVILEGE IN STREET TO ALLOW PLACEMENT OF A FIBER NETWORK Oshkosh Area Schools request the Plan Commission to review and approve a privilege in street to allow placement of a fiber optic network in City right-of-way. This is the second of three phases to connect Oshkosh schools to one another via the fiber network. This will also allow the City to connect its fire stations and other City facilities with one another. The network will follow routes as indicated on the attached site plan. Motion by Ruppenthal for approval of the Consent Agenda with Conditions for Item B as follows: 1) The conduit be installed in a manner that is approved by the Department of Public Works with no modifications or changes in construction procedure without prior approval by the Department of Public Works. 2) If no longer needed the network to be properly abandoned and removed in accordance with City standards and under the direction of the Department of Public Works. 3) Any problem which may arise as a result result of the placement of the fiber optic network be the responsibility of the petitioner/owner to correct in coordination with the Department of Public Works. Plan Commission Minutes 2 June 17, 2003 4) All appropriate permits be obtained prior to the start of placement of the network. 5) The network be modified or removed immediately upon the request of the City. 6) The petitioner/owner secures and submits to the City Clerk a separate insurance policy which names the City as an additional insured with a minimum coverage of $200,000 per person and $500,000 in general aggregate. 7) It is the responsibility of the petitioner/owner to file in a timely manner a new insurance certificate with the City Clerk upon expiration of an existing certificate. Failure to do so will result in the revocation of the privilege in street within ten (10) days of notice. 8) The petitioner/owner execute a hold harmless agreement with the City. Seconded by Propp. Motion carried 7-0. II: VARIANCE TO THE ACCESS CONTROL ORDINANCE TO ALLOW A TOTAL OF FOUR (4) DRIVEWAYS WHEREAS ONLY TWO DRIVEWAYS ARE ALLOWED Father Martin Carr, petitioner/owner requests the Plan Commission to review and approve a variance to the Access Control Ordinance to allow a total of four driveways to serve a commercial site whereas a maximum of two driveways are allowed. The 8.2 acre subject property is zoned C-2PD General Commercial District with a Planned Development Overlay. Mr. Borsuk questioned how this variance would relate to the realignment of the Highway 21 interchange. Mr. Burich stated there are three existing driveways on Koeller Street, and one will be eliminated. He stated the variance basically pertained to the driveway on Robin Avenue and would not affect the future interchange project. Mr. Borsuk questioned how many driveways were normally allowed. Mr. Burich explained a commercial site located on an arterial or collector street is allowed two driveways, and one more driveway would be allowed for a site having over 600’ of frontage or over 5,000 vehicles using the site per day.Motion by Dell’Antonia for approval of a variance to the Access Control Ordinance to allow a total of four driveways to serve a commercial site at 1965 Oshkosh Avenue. Seconded by Reschenberg. Mr. Borsuk questioned the distance from Koeller Street to the entrance on Robin Avenue. Mr. Burich stated the distance from the property line to the driveway entrance was 70.2 feet. Motion carried 7-0. III: LAND ACQUISITION OF PORTIONS OF 523 AND 525 N. MAIN STREET City Administration requests the Plan Commission to approve the acquisition of portions of 523 and 525 N. Main Street. The purpose of the acquisition is to facilitate construction of a public parking lot behind properties located along the west side of the 500 block of N. Main Street. Mr. Ruppenthal questioned if people will be able to park in other than designated areas, as the plan appears to have a lot of open space. Plan Commission Minutes 3 June 17, 2003 Susan Kepplinger, Principal Planner, stated this proposed layout is a preliminary parking plan and noted there may be room for a few more spaces to be created. She also explained that open areas behind the buildings need to be maintained to allow for deliveries to the businesses. Mr. Ruppenthal questioned if this would be a City owned lot. Ms. Kepplinger stated the City already owns it and it will be retained for a public parking lot. Mr. Kinney stated that the City has purchased the old railroad right-of-way along with the Avenue Hair Salon to create enough space for an adequate sized parking lot. He added that at the present time the City does not enforce parking regulations in the area because it is not designated as a public parking lot. Discussion continued regarding parking behind 531 and 537 N. Main Street and the control needed for the parking lot. Ms. Mattox questioned if the parking lot would accommodate the apartments in the Webster building. Ms. Kepplinger Kepplinger stated there would be long term parking spaces available for the tenants. Mr. Borsuk questioned if it should be the developer’s responsibility to provide tenant parking. Mr. Dell’Antonia questioned what funding was available for this acquisition and the cost involved. Ms. Kepplinger stated a combination of TIF and Block Grant money may be used. She stated appraisals would be conducted as soon as the Common Council gives authorization for this request. Gary Eake, G. Earl Real Estate, 410 N. Koeller Street, stated the developer has plans for 10 apartments and three commercial units for the 501 N. Main Street property. He stated the developer was using his own resources to rehabilitate the site. Motion by Kathy Propp to approve the acquisition of portions of 523 and 525 N. Main Street. Seconded by Ruppenthal. Motion carried 7-0. Kathy Propp stated she feels this is an enormous and welcome improvement to the area. IV: LAND ACQUISITIONS OF 510 CAMPUS PLACE AND 211 DAWES STREET City Administration requests the Plan Commission to approve the acquisition of 510 Campus Place and 211 Dawes Street. Both properties contain single family dwellings that have been found to be blighted by the Redevelopment Authority and which the Authority has authorized their acquisition. Mr. Borsuk questioned if the properties were located in the redevelopment area. Mr. Burich stated they were not. Mr. Borsuk questioned if the Redevelopment Authority was allowed to purchase the properties, and what source of funding would be used. Mr. Burich stated they would be able to purchase the properties with the Common Council’s approval, using funds from the Community Development Block Grant program. Mr. Borsuk questioned if the buildings could be taken down with a raze order. Mr. Kinney stated it was not likely at this time. Mr. Borsuk commented that he would like to see a plan for the site before the City would purchase the property. Mr. Dell’Antonia asked what the condition of the property at 203 Dawes Street was. Mr. Kinney stated the the property at 203 Dawes Street contained a newer duplex. Plan Commission Minutes 4 June 17, 2003 Mr. Kinney stated purchasing the properties and making improvements would provide an opportunity for the adjacent property owners to purchase all or parts of the properties to enhance their developments. Ms. Mattox questioned if anyone would need to be relocated from these properties. Mr. Kinney stated he believed 510 Campus Place was empty, and Ms. Kepplinger explained that 211 Dawes Street was an occupied single family dwelling and the tenants would have to be relocated. Mrs. Propp asked if the lots would become City property. Mr. Kinney stated the Redevelopment Authority would own the property. He stated various opportunities were being considered for the properties at this time including a habitat for humanity project or to provide parking for the adjacent developments. Mr. Ruppenthal stated dwellings on both properties were in poor shape and this would be a good opportunity to eliminate the blighting conditions near a redevelopment area. Motion by Ruppenthal to approve the acquisition of 510 Campus Place and 211 Dawes Street. Seconded by Reschenberg. Motion carried 6-1. Nay: Borsuk V: FELKER ANNEXATION Tod Schmick, Turn Key Auto Sales, petitioner for Darrel Felker, owner, requests the Plan Commission to review and approve the Felker Annexation for two parcels of land located in the Town of Algoma. Temporary and permanent zoning of C-2 General Commercial District has been requested. The properties encompass approximately one acre with one parcel containing an uninhabited single family dwelling that will be razed or moved. Mr. Dell’Antonia questioned what impact the annexation would have on the dwelling located on the property. Mr. Burich stated the house will be taken down or removed from the property. Motion by Dell’Antonia for approval of the Felker Annexation for two parcels of land located in the Town of Algoma with temporary and permanent zoning of C-2 General Commercial District as requested. Seconded by Reschenberg. Motion carried 7-0. VI: PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 30/ZONING REGULATIONS The Department of Community Development requests the Plan Commission review and recommend approval of text amendments to Chapter 30 of the Oshkosh Municipal Code, which is the City’s Zoning Ordinance. The intent of this ordinance language is to establish standards in the Zoning Ordinance that will relate to parking and placement of recreational vehicles and off-premise recreational equipment. Mr. Tucker gave a presentation and discussed the major changes that have been made since the last time the Plan Commission reviewed the item on February 18, 2003. Attorney William Manske, 300 Division Street, opened his remarks by mentioning the comic from the Northwestern regarding what can be stored in the front yard. He stated the way this ordinance currently reads nothing could be placed in the front yard, and it may or may not be enforced depending on whether it is a legal nonconforming situation or not. Plan Commission Minutes 5 June 17, 2003 Mr. Manske made reference to a slide from the power point presentation allowing a 7.5 foot setback from the lot line. He stated an 8 foot wide RV couldn’t be stored in the front yard, along side the garage or be able to get to the back yard for storage. He stated a provision is needed to allow a RV to be parked in the driveway during the same time a boat is allowed to be parked there. Mr. Manske questioned if a boat can be parked in the driveway between April 1 and November 1 why couldn’t the same time frame be allowed for a RV to be parked in the driveway? Mr. Manske stated the staff has only met with people on a one to one basis and not held a group or committee meeting for the proper imput regarding this ordinance. Mr. Manske also stated a definite screening plan has not been laid out, rather people should call the City staff to determine the necessary screening, and some RV’s are not easy to screen. He stated this ordinance needs a lot of work. Robert Raimann, 78 Frankfort Street, President of the Winnebago Wanderers, the local chapter of the Good Sam International Camping Club, with over 1,000,000 members, stated he has been following the progress of this ordinance since March 1st, and the same concerns he has talked about with staff remain in the ordinance and his club feels that boaters are given special treatment. Mr. Raimann stated a 25 foot setback from the rear property line is unrealistic, especially when a detached garage is allowed 2.5 feet from the rear property line. He also stated 7.5 feet from the side property line is not realistic. Mr. Raimann also feels the legal nonconforming parking space exception is a nice exception for the current owners but doesn’t do anything for future generations. Mr. Raimann stated crushed stone should be allowed along with concrete or blacktop in the construction of a parking pad. He stated it is 85-90% less than the cost of concrete. He stated he has used crushed rock for many years and has not had any problems with dust generation. He asked the Plan Commission to keep in mind that these RV’s are only moved approximately 4 times a month during the camping season, not in and out on a daily basis. He stated in most cases the parking space is only large enough to store the camping unit and wind blowing dust and stones isn’t as issue. Mr. Raimann also stated there are no provisions for handicapped people to get a permit to park in their driveways, for property owners to settle a complaint, or for renters who have no control over the property’s condition. Mr. Raimann stated RV owners are responsible citizens ranging from young families to senior citizens who are asking to be treated the same as boat owners and be allowed to park on their driveways between April 1st and November 1st. He urged the Plan Commission to soften the requirements to satisfy the City and the owners of recreation vehicles. (Written statement on file in the Department of Community Development.) Plan Commission Minutes 6 June 17, 2003 Douglas Flouro, 1750 S. Oakwood Road, passed around pictures of a boat and a recreational vehicle parked in driveways. (On file in the Department of Community Development.) Mr. Flouro stated boats and RV’s should be treated equal. He stated he is considering building a new home, and under the Farm Preservation Act the widest city lot should have a width no larger than 90’, and most have an 80’ width, which is not enough room to park in a side yard or get your vehicle to the back yard with a modest size home on the lot. He stated the same rules should apply to RV owners as they do for boat owners. Mr. Dell’Antonia asked if the wording of nonconforming could be revised, and questioned how that would be monitored. Mr. Kinney stated this ordinance is an attempt to establish standards in the Zoning Ordinance that will relate to the parking and placement of recreational vehicles and off-premise recreational equipment. A nonconforming condition would cease to apply when the parking or storage ceases and the vehicle or equipment owners would not be allowed to park or store their vehicle without first complying with the ordinance. Discussion followed regarding the nonconforming issue, the Class I and Class II categories for RV’s vs. any size boat being allowed to park in the driveway between April 1 and November 1. Vice Chairman Bettes asked for the Plan Commission to give their view on the ordinance as it stands. Mrs. Propp stated she understands the RV owners point of view and feels an allowance could be made for Class I RV’s to be parked in the driveway from April 1 through November 1, however, she feels Class II RV’s would be obtrusive and should not be parked in a residential neighborhood. Mr. Ruppenthal stated one needs to be considerate of their neighbors, and large RV’s detract from an enjoyable neighborhood. He stated he feels the proposed ordinance is reasonable. Ms. Mattox stated she would like to keep the ordinance simple and she is aware of older neighborhoods where you wouldn’t be able to store larger vehicles in the back yard because of the narrow lots, however, she feels Class I RV’s should be considered equal to boats for parking in the driveway. Mr. Dell’Antonia stated he feels the ordinance is watered down and can’t support it as is. He also stated he doesn’t feel it is reasonable to compare boats to RV’s. Mr. Reschenberg stated he feels large boats are just as bad as Class II RV’s to park in the driveway. He questioned if staff has held enough public meetings to consider various groups concerns. Mr. Borsuk stated he feels the ordinance is just about as good as it can get, with one modification to be made to categorize boats into two classes to be comparable to RV’s and give both the same privileges. He stated a modification could be made at this time, or the item could be laid over, however, he didn’t feel the ordinance was far from completion. Vice Chairman Bettes stated if the Plan Commission doesn’t feel they understand the ordinance at this point, then the general public won’t understand it. He stated improvements have been made but he won’t support it as is. Plan Commission Minutes 7 June 17, 2003 Mrs. Propp stated she agrees with Mr. Borsuk’s suggestions to have two classes for boats with trailers, which would relate to the RV sizes and have the same provisions for both. Mr. Kinney stated that perhaps another workshop should be held to consider the issues that have been discussed at today’s meeting. He stated screening was another area in addition to the boats vs. RV’s issue that needs some reasonable language to create an enforcement tool in regards to parking and storage of recreational vehicles and equipment. Motion by Propp to approve text amendments to Chapter 30 of the Oshkosh Municipal Code as proposed, with an amendment to allow Class I RV’s to park in the driveway from April 1 – November 1. Seconded by Ruppenthal. Motion denied 2-5. Motion by Borsuk to lay over this item for up to two months to give ample time to hold a workshop if deemed necessary to consider concerns brought up at tonight’s meeting. Seconded by Reschenberg. Motion carried 7-0. Discussion followed regarding issues to be considered at the workshop and the possibility of having the City Attorney address the Plan Commission regarding language in the ordinance. OTHER BUSINESS 􀁸 Mr. Kinney passed around a letter of resignation from Donald Krueger. 􀁸 Vice Chairman Bettes welcomed Jon Dell’Antonia on his return to the Plan Commission. 􀁸 Mr. Burich reminded the Plan Commission of the Comp Plan Update Committee meeting on June 18 at 4:00 in room 404. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:55 p.m. (Ruppenthal/Dell’Antonia) Unanimous. Respectfully submitted, DARRYN L. BURICH Principal Planner DLB/vlr