HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes
PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 15, 2002 PRESENT: Wm. Bettes, Lurton Blassingame, Steve Gehling, Jack Heinemann, Achim Reschenberg, John Ruppenthal, and Donald Krueger, Vice Chairman
EXCUSED: Melanie Bloechl, Donald Pressley, Fred Timmerman, and David Borsuk STAFF: Darryn Burich, Principal Planner, Jackson Kinney, Director of Community Development, and Vickie Rand,
Recording Secretary The meeting was called to order by Vice Chairman Krueger. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. The Meeting Minutes of December 18, 2001 were approved
as mailed (Blassingame/Reschenberg). Unanimous. I: Extraterritorial Land Division/Certified Survey Map 2677 Indian Point Road Carol Kaufmann, petitioner/owner, requests Plan Commission
review and approval of an extraterritorial land division/certified survey map (CSM) for property generally located at 2677 Indian Point Road in the Town of Oshkosh. There was no discussion
on this item. Motion by Bettes for approval of an Extraterritorial Land Division, Certified Survey Map for property generally located at 2677 Indian Point Road in the Town of Oshkosh.
Seconded by Blassingame. Motion denied 0-7. II: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PUBLIC UTILITY STRUCTURE AT 490 N. CAMPBELL ROAD Time Warner Cable, petitioner, for Wisconsin Public Service
Corporation, owner, request Plan Commission review and approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to construct a public utility structure at 490 N. Campbell Road. The subject property
is zoned C-1 Neighborhood Business District, which does allow public utility structures by CUP. The land use pattern in the area is characterized by boat storage and docking facilities
to the north, an undeveloped lot to the south, and University recreational uses to the west. There was no discussion on this item.
Plan Commission Minutes Page 2 January 15, 2002 Motion by Ruppenthal for approval of a Conditional Use Permit to construct a public utility structure at 490 N. Campbell Road and found
the request to be consistent with Standards set forth in Section 30-11 (D) of the Zoning Ordinance subject to the following condition: 1) A landscape plan be submitted to and approved
by the Department of Community Development. Seconded by Gehling. Motion carried 7-0. III: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CHILDREN’S DAY CARE FACILITY AT 2318 W. 20TH AVE Terry Jokipii,
petitioner, for Scott Kelly, owner, requests Plan Commission review and approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to operate a children’s day care facility at 2318 W. 20th Avenue. The
subject property is zoned R-1 Single Family Residential District, which does allow day care facilities through a CUP. Mr. Burich introduced the item and passed out copies to the Plan
Commission of a parking plan submitted by the applicant earlier today. He also pointed out a proposed parking plan designed by staff. He recommended that a condition be included for
a parking plan to be submitted to and approved by the Department of Community Development should the item be approved. Mr. Ruppenthal questioned if the applicant’s parking plan met the
code requirements. Mr. Burich stated that Ms. Jokippii’s plan didn’t as currently proposed but may be able to be reconfigured to meet the Ordinance or she could apply for a variance.
He stated the parking plan proposed by staff would meet the code requirements. Mr. Gehling questioned if the driveway and parking lot would need to be paved. Mr. Burich stated that paving
was a requirement of the Zoning Ordinance. Donald Shaw, 2300 W. 20th Avenue, stated he had recently purchased the house to the right of the subject property, and believed to be in a
residential neighborhood. He stated his bedroom was approximately 25’ from the subject structure, and was concerned that a 7-day a week, 24-hour a day business was proposed for the site.
He stated the traffic from three shifts of cars and people coming and going would have a negative impact on his quality of life. Mr. Shaw also stated he had contacted his realtor regarding
the effect of such a business on his property value and was told it would have an adverse effect, and would be more difficult to sell. He stated he didn’t want this type of business
in a residential area at his expense, both financially and negatively effecting his quality of life. Mr. Shaw also stated he was concerned with children wandering on his property with
the chance of injuring themselves, and filing a lawsuit against him. He encouraged the Plan Commission to consider denial of this proposal.
Plan Commission Minutes Page 3 January 15, 2002 Mr. Ruppenthal questioned what affect the current business had on his property and quality of life. Mr. Shaw stated the current business
has little effect on his property and quality of life because it operates 5 days a week from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. and some Saturday mornings, and is a fairly quiet operation. Mr. Shaw encouraged
the City to maintain a residential zoning district for the subject property upon its sale. Mr. Burich stated that day care operations are allowed in a residential district through a
Conditional Use Permit, by which adjacent property owners are provided a chance to voice their concerns during the review process before the Plan Commission and City Council. Wendy Schwalbe,
2387 Allerton Drive, stated she lived directly behind the subject property, and she has worked with youth all her life. She stated she called Child Resource and Referral Services to
inquire about the demand for second and third shift day care and found there had been 40 requests for second shift care and 32 requests for 3rd shift care during the last year. She explained
the YMCA, located on 20th Avenue, was looking into providing 2nd shift daycare, and noted they have a much safer location for the drop off and pick up of children. She stated she felt
the proposed site was dangerous in that regard. She also stated she was concerned with the affect on the aesthetics of her property, and the quality of life for her family, especially
on the weekends, being adjacent to a fenced in play area, and having lights shining on her property. She encouraged the Plan Commission to consider a Monday through Friday operation
with hours from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m., noting that a 7 day a week, 24 hours a day operation would have a negative effect on the neighborhood. Sandy Schuessler, 2395 Allerton Drive, stated
she also lives behind the subject property. She stated she was basically concerned with the additional lighting, the play area, and the affect on her property value. She stated she has
lived lived in the neighborhood for 17 years, and feels the lack of privacy, and the noise from traffic coming and going at all hours would be a big disruption for the neighborhood.
Terry Jokippii, petitioner, 2885 Oakwood Lane, stated she understands the concerns of the neighborhood, however, she explained there won’t be any additional lights on the property. She
explained she was proposing to provide a home style day care vs. an institutionalized setting, and there would only be lights on in the front office during the night and not in the play
area. Ms. Jokippii stated she had a letter from Child Care Resource and Referral services stating the growing need for second and third shift day care in the community. She stated she
would have a maximum of 8-9 children at night. She stated the children wouldn’t be outside after 6:30 p.m. during the winter, however, would like condition number 4 in staff report changed
to allow the children to be outside until 7:30 or 8 p.m. during the summer. She stated the business would look like a home inside and out and be aesthetically pleasing to the neighborhood,
therefore she didn’t feel the lighting or property value was an issue. She also responded to the YMCA issue, stating they don’t offer second shift day care at the present time, therefore
she didn’t see any reason for her not to have it available. She also stated the structure was not useful for a home and could be re-sold as a woodworking business. She also responded
to Mr. Shaw’s concern with his bedroom being 25’ from the structure, stating a fence and landscaping would be installed as a buffer. She explained the children will have structure and
noted there wouldn’t be 30 children running around and screaming at all hours. She also stated she was willing to work out any parking issues with staff.
Plan Commission Minutes Page 4 January 15, 2002 Mr. Gehling analyzed the shift situation stating approximately 8-10 children with 8-10 cars would be making pick ups or deliveries between
6 p.m. and 6 a.m. He questioned what ages the day care would service. Ms. Jokippi stated the ages of the children would range from 2 1/2 to 6 years of age. Mr. Ruppenthal questioned
what activities would be planned for the children on the weekends. Ms. Jokippi stated the children would have outside activities on the weekend, however, she planned on employing only
1 staff person on weekends and at night, therefore limiting the number of children being cared for at that time. Mr. Heinemann stated that may be her plan at this time, however, that
may change with the demand for care. Ms. Jokippi stated she was willing to accept a condition in regard to having one employee for second and third shifts and weekends for a maximum
of 8-9 children. Mr. Heinemann questioned the anticipated market for day care. Ms. Jokippi stated she envisioned the market to come from west-side subdivisions, the hospital and the
Southwest Industrial Park. She again referred to the letter from Child Care Resource and Referral stating the need for second and third shift care givers. She also noted how the cost
for care, being higher than most, would determine the clientele. Mr. Bettes clarified that the licensed capacity would be for 36 children at one time, however, he stated more than 36
children could be serviced when considering the number of children cared for during each shift. Mr. Jokippi stated she would also accept a condition for further review if the need arises
to care for more than 8 or 9 children during the second and third shift. Mr. Reschenberg questioned the requirement for only 1 employee per 8 children, and what would happen in the case
of an emergency. Discussion followed regarding the licensing requirements. Amy Shaw, 2300 W. 20th Avenue, questioned if the owner can’t sell the property for a home, how can a Conditional
Use Permit be granted for a day care business resembling a home day care facility. Mr. Burich stated the property is zoned residential, and could be used as a residence. He explained
the new owner would have to upgrade the dwelling according to the building codes. He stated the issue for the Plan Commission review was the use of the land only. Sandy Schuessler, questioned
what type of fence was proposed and how high the fence would be. Mr. Burich stated the area was required to be screened with a solid fence and landscaping. Ms. Schuessler stated she
was also concerned with car lights. Mr. Shaw asked the Plan Commission to put themselves in his shoes. He stated even though Ms. Jokippi was willing to work with the Plan Commission
to resolve several issues, he could supply whatever information it would take to prove this proposal should be denied, as he could see it as a financial loss for him. Ms. Jokippi stated
she felt this proposal would be an improvement to the property, providing a home type atmosphere in the neighborhood. Wendy Schwalbe stated she has worked in state licensed day care
facilities and two staff people were always required on site.
Plan Commission Minutes Page 5 January 15, 2002 Mr. Gehling stated there was a need for the proposed day care, and if limited to 8 children at night it wouldn’t be any different from
a family day care. He stated basically the request was for a day care for 36 children from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m., and only a few children at night. Mr. Blassingame stated he would approve
the Conditional Use Permit with the condition that it would limit the number of children during the evening and weekend hours, although the safety of the drop off and pick up area was
also a concern that should be investigated further. He stated a balance needed to be found between the needs of the general public and the adjacent property owner’s loss. Mr. Bettes
stated he would not approve this proposal, as he believed Conditional Use Permits should be granted only when they would not do any harm to the neighborhood, and he didn’t believe this
was the case. He stated he didn’t believe the lot was suitable for a child care facility. Discussion continued regarding the structure, the pre-existing non-conforming use, the zoning
in the area, and the proposed day care to be harmonious with the neighborhood. Mr. Ruppenthal stated he believed a larger property would work better for the use of a day care licensed
for over 30 children. He stated he would reconsider a proposal for a Monday through Friday business with first shift hours. Mr. Reschenberg stated he would also oppose this proposal,
as he was concerned about the safety of the ingress and egress on a busy street. Motion by Blassingame for approval of a Conditional Use Permit as found in compliance with the standards
of Section 30-11 for the operation of a child day care center at 2318 W. 20th Avenue with the following conditions: 1) License capacity for the facility not to exceed 36 children. 2)
The fenced in play area be solidly screened with additional landscape treatments added to buffer adjacent residential properties along the rear property line. 3) Landscape plan be submitted
and approved by the Department of Community Development. 4) Outside play activities be confined to 6:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. 5) Parking and driveway areas are to be made dust free surfaces.
6) Evening and weekend hours limited to one care provider. 7) Parking plan to be submitted to and approved by the Department of Community Development. Seconded by Gehling. Motion denied
2-5. Nays: Bettes, Heinemann, Krueger, Reschenberg, and Ruppenthal. Terry Jokippi asked the Plan Commission if they would approve a Conditional Use Permit request for operation of a
day care facility operating Monday through Friday, 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. on the same site.
Plan Commission Minutes Page 6 January 15, 2002 Mr. Kinney stated she could come back with another request for review. Chairman Krueger asked the Commissioner’s who opposed the CUP to
comment. Chairman Krueger stated he would still be opposed to the CUP because of the safety issue surrounding the ingress and egress of the site. He stated during a busy time he could
see traffic backing up on 20th Avenue, creating a hazard. Mr. Heinemann stated he agreed with Chairman Krueger, noting the site proposed a challenge for a day care facility. Mr. Reschenberg
stated he would also oppose a day care facility operating from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. Paul Esslinger, 2350 High Oak Drive, stated the application could be amended at the Common Council level.
Mr. Kinney agreed that the applicant could amend the request at the Common Council meeting. IV: STREET NAME CHANGE FROM OSHKOSH AVENUE TO N. KOELLER STREET The City of Oshkosh Traffic
Review Advisory Board requests the City of Oshkosh Plan Commission to review and approve a street name change for a 1,200 foot section of Oshkosh Avenue. The change would provide for
redesignating the segment N. Koeller Street. The segment in question is located between the current intersection of Oshkosh Avenue and Omro Road and N. Koeller Street to the southwest
(see attached map). Mr. Ruppenthal questioned if North Koeller would cross the current lots between 1858 and 1832 Oshkosh Avenue. Mr. Kinney pointed out the proposed reconfiguration
of the U.S. Highway 41 and Highway 21 reconstruction. Mr. Gehling questioned if this request has been post office or petitioner driven. Mr. Burich stated the request was made by the
Traffic Review Advisory Board. Discussion followed regarding the costs involved to the property owners when changing a street name. Mr. Burich passed around one letter received in opposition
to the name change. Mr. Kinney stated it was difficult for people to find the access for Koeller Street when exiting Highway 41. Robert Kujawa, 504 W. Nevada Street, Chairman of the
Traffic Review Advisory Board, stated the name change request was a result of reviewing the speed limit in the area. He stated he had also received comment from a resident at 1865 Oshkosh
Avenue who felt it was about time the change was made since it has been confusing for delivery drivers to find the address. He stated this change seemed more logical to the traveling
public. Paul Esslinger, 2350 High Oak Drive, stated the current situation was confusing. He stated he assumed it was Koeller Street until just a month ago.
Plan Commission Minutes Page 7 January 15, 2002 Russell Kuklinski, 1815 Oshkosh Avenue, didn’t feel the street name change was needed for his location. He suggested the name change be
made when other improvements in the area were finalized. He stated he has lived there for 27 years and has never had any problems with deliveries. However, he stated he would support
the name change at the right time. Mr. Kujawa discussed the steps needed to be made before the improvements would begin on U.S. Highway 41, which wouldn’t probably take place until 2008-2010.
He also stated there was no guarantee of any improvements being made, therefore, he didn’t feel there was any reason to delay the street name change. Mr. Gehling stated he didn’t feel
there was any reason to change the street name at this time. He stated the current situation has existed for over 50 years, and since there is no indication of any complaints from the
fire or police departments he wouldn’t support the name change. Mr. Ruppenthal suggested they consider the change again when U.S. Highway 41 improvements were made. Mr. Kinney used the
map as displayed to point out the changes that would seem logical to make before the U.S. Highway 41 improvements would begin. Mr. Reschenberg also stated he would like to delay this
street name change until other improvements were made in the area. Chairman Krueger stated he would also like to wait with the street name change since changes would possibly be needed
again in another 6-8 years. Motion by Blassingame for approval of the street name and number change from Oshkosh Avenue to N. Koeller Street for the property addresses from 1811 – 1965
Oshkosh Avenue. Effective date of this name change to be June 1st, 2002. Seconded by Heinemann. Motion denied 0-7. V. REVIEW/COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE Mr. Kinney asked Ms. Bales to hand
out information at this time regarding the Comprehensive Plan update. He explained the list of Steering Committee members have changed. He stated this would be discussed further at the
February 5 meeting due to time constraints at this time. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 5:45 p.m. (Heinemann/Blassingame). Unanimous. Respectfully
submitted, DARRYN BURICH Principal Planner DB/vlr