Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutesPLAN COMMISSION MINUTES June 15, 2010 PRESENT: David Borsuk, Ed Bowen, Jeffrey Thorns, Thomas Fojtik, John Hinz, Tony Palmeri, Kathleen Propp, Kent Monte, Donna Lohry, Robert Vajgrt, Karl Nollenberger EXCUSED: none STAFF: Darryn Burich, Director of Planning Services; David Buck, Principal Planner; Jeffrey Nau, Associate Planner; Steven Gohde, Assistant Director of Public Works; Deborah Foland, Recording Secretary Chairperson Fojtik called the meeting to order at 4:00 pm. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. The minutes of June 1, 2010 were approved as presented. (ThomsBorsuk) L ACCESS CONTROL VARIANCE TO PERMIT A TOTAL OF NINE DRIVEWAY OPENINGS TO 333 WEST 29 AVENUE (NE CORNER OF HUGHES STREET AND WAUKAU AVENUE) The petitioner is requesting an access control variance to permit a total of nine driveway openings to service the property at 333 West 29 Avenue (northeast corner of Hughes Street and Waukau Avenue). The property currently has eight driveway openings: two on West Waukau Avenue, four on Hughes Street and two on West 29 Avenue. Mr. Nau presented the item and reviewed the site plan and surrounding area. He stated that the additional entrance is proposed to address safety concerns originating from increased truck traffic utilizing the existing driveways and off - street parking areas. The additional access is proposed to be located off of Hughes Street and Mr. Nau reviewed the site plan and commented that the additional access is not excessive considering the size of the parcel. He also reviewed the conditions recommended for the request. Mr. Thorns questioned if Hughes Street had the capability of handling the additional truck traffic to access this driveway. Steve Gohde, Assistant Director of Public Works, stated that Hughes Street currently experiences heavy truck traffic and it would be possibly resurfaced with a hot mix overlay within the next year. Mr. Thorns also questioned if the proposed entrance would be capable of handling access by fire trucks. Mr. Nau responded that considering the types of vehicles produced at Oshkosh Corporation, the ability for this entrance to handle fire trucks should not be an issue. Ms. Lohry inquired if Oshkosh Corporation owns or leases the property. Mr. Nau replied that Oshkosh Corporation owns the site. Plan Commission Minutes June 15, 2010 Ms. Lohry also inquired if the new culvert recommended in the conditions for this request would result in the entire street having to be reconstructed. Mr. Nau responded that a deep ditch currently exists in this location and when the new driveway opening is constructed, the larger culvert will be installed with any details being directed by the Department of Public Works. Chris Murawski, SDE Consultants, LLC, 5921 Harbour South Drive, Winneconne, petitioner for this request, stated that he had reviewed the recommended conditions for this request and did not have any issues with them. He further commented that there was an existing culvert in this location which will need to be extended and should not be an issue. He also explained the location of a navigable waterway near the site which limits where the new access can be placed. The new entrance was to have direct access to the manufacturing building and yard for deliveries and shipping and is not intended for employee use. Motion by Nollenberger to approve the access control variance to permit a total of nine driveway openings to 333 West 29` Avenue as requested with the following conditions: 1. Knox box be provided at the security gates located at the new driveway access. 2. New culvert be sized and have grades as directed or determined by the Department of Public Work's Engineering Division. Seconded by Vajgrt. Motion carried 8 -0 -1. (Monte abstained from voting on this item as he is employed by the Department of Defense). II. POBEREZNY ROAD ANNEXATION The petitioners are requesting a direct annexation by unanimous approval of approximately 163.66 acres of land currently located in the Town of Nekimi. The annexation involves seven parcels of land. Mr. Burich presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area. He stated that the property is proposed to be annexed with an M -lPD zoning designation which is consistent with the overall recommended land use for the area and the existing zoning to the west along Washburn Street. The Planned Development designation will allow for review of all new development in the corridor. He also stated that the annexation of this large assemblage will allow the City to undertake broader sewer and water planning in this area for future development purposes. Mr. Thorns inquired how far the city limits currently extend in this area. Mr. Burich displayed on the map the areas currently located in the City and in the townships and commented that the annexation would be contiguous to the west with a portion of property still located in the Town of Nekimi to the north of the subject site. Mr. Thorns questioned if this annexation would have any impact on the development of the west side arterial. Mr. Burich responded that it would not have any impact on that development. Mr. Thorns also asked about the ability to provide sewer and water to this area. Plan Commission Minutes June 15, 2010 Mr. Burich replied that there was currently sewer and water services going down Washburn Street but the system had a limited amount of capacity. If the annexation is approved, the City will begin planning for broader service provision for the area. Ms. Propp inquired why the Veterans' Museum was not included in the annexation request. Mr. Burich responded that it was due to timing. Ms. Lohry questioned the amount the City has budgeted for sewer and water services for new development. Mr. Burich replied that once the lands are annexed into the City, the planning process would begin to provide sewer and water services to the area. Ms. Lohry then questioned if this project would absorb all the available funding for these types of services. Mr. Gohde responded that the City budget has no designated allotment for sewer and water services and that funding for these projects is calculated in anticipation of growth. John St. Peter, attorney from Edgarton, St. Peter, Petak & Rosenfeldt, 10 Forest Avenue, Fond du Lac, representing the Town of Nekimi, stated that the Town was in opposition of the annexation request. He further stated that it was his understanding that Fox Valley Technical College is proposing a school development on part of the annexed property and he wished to discuss the matter on both a planning relationship basis and a legal standpoint. The Town has concerns with the size of the proposed annexation and has been excluded by the developer in any participation in discussions on the matter. The annexation would create a functional island of Town property and will have a significant impact on the Town in regard to the phasing in of the development project, stormwater management issues, road issues, and the impact to the adjacent land uses. He further stated that the developer and the City should have approached the Town to discuss the annexation in advance. He did not see the urgent need to develop the proposed training center and felt that it should have been implemented in an orderly fashion as it will be a large tax base gone from the Town. He commented that Mr. Burich has always been cooperative to work with and he did meet with him after the petition had been filed and the proposed development is the greatest concern. He challenged the aspect of a unanimous annexation as the annexation petition is signed by a Phillip Ruedinger as trustee for a portion of the lands and he claimed there was not a signed trust to support his authority. The petition is also signed by Thomas Rusch and Richard Gabert however it is not signed by the other owner of a portion of the land, Gambrinus Enterprises. There is a land contract between Gambrinus Enterprises and Mr. Rusch and Mr. Gabert however there is no evidence that it was ever recorded which would result in the petition not being unanimous as claimed. This would give the Town the ability to challenge the size of the annexation and other aspects of the petition and he felt that Gambrinus Enterprises was required to be a signatory on the petition for it to be valid. He suggested that the annexation be postponed until the City, Town, developers, and Fox Valley Technical College could meet to discuss the matter as the Town was opposed to the annexation but not the development. Paul Poberezny, 4375 Waupun Road, stated that the annexation would cover lands on three sides of his property and that when the land was donated for the development of the Veterans' Museum, he was told that the City would provide sewer and water services under the highway. He further commented that there were buildings in the city that could be used for the proposed technical college development and he was opposed to it. Plan Commission Minutes June 15, 2010 Mr. Palmeri questioned if Mr. St. Peter was correct about the claim that the annexation petition was not unanimous and if it was feasible to not move forward with the annexation today to allow the Town time to arrange to meet with the various parties to discuss the matter. Mr. Burich disagreed and stated that it was the City's position that the annexation petition was unanimous and stated that Fox Valley Technical College has an urgency to move forward with this request today to further its development on the site. Mr. Bowen inquired if the City Attorney felt that the annexation petition was complete. Mr. Burich responded that the City was acting under the assumption that a land contract was in place for the property owned by Gambrinus Enterprises and he was not aware of the legal implications of the land contract not being recorded at this point. The issue at hand for the Plan Commission is to determine if the annexation of the property is in the City's best interest. Mr. Thorns questioned why Fox Valley Technical College had two proposals for the same use at two different locations on the agenda today. Mr. Burich replied that the property owner of the previous Copps Grocery Store had submitted the conditional use permit request for their site at 1200 S. Koeller Street not the technical college. Mr. Thorns stated that he was disappointed that these issues were not discussed with the Town of Nekimi in advance and that he felt that the annexation was contrary to the Comprehensive Plan as said plan states that the City does not "leap frog" properties to annex other lands. Mr. Burich responded that the intergovernmental agreement signed by the Town of Nekimi and the City of Oshkosh states that property owners have the ability to annex their land into the City upon their request and a cooperative plan is not in place at this time between the two entities. He also commented that the annexation was technically not considered "leap frogging" properties as the EAA and airport facilities are an impediment to the City's growth. Mr. Thorns clarified that the City had already expanded its boundaries to the west of the subject site and apparently had no huge burden to extend utility services to this area and wanted verification that if a petitioner requests annexation of their property into the City; they do not require approval from the Town. Mr. Burich responded affirmatively and stated that unanimous annexations do not leave avenues open to be challenged as a majority annexation does. Mr. Thorns stated that if the annexation was at the request of the property owners, the Commission should then be considering if the land use was appropriate. Mr. Burich replied that the zoning designation being proposed was M -lPD which would allow commercial and light industrial uses which is compatible with the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Propp commented that there was not much development in the three mile corridor that was previously annexed and she did not feel good about supporting sprawl. She voiced her concern about the technical college development spurring the annexation request. Plan Commission Minutes June 15, 2010 Mr. Borsuk stated that the questions at hand are if the annexation is good planning for the City, if it is compatible with the Comprehensive Plan, is it the desire of the property owners, and good for the community. On all criteria, approval of this annexation would be the correct choice. Mr. Hinz inquired when the request would go to the Common Council for action. Mr. Burich responded that it would be on the agenda next week. Mr. Hinz suggested that the request be postponed until the next Plan Commission meeting. Mr. Thorns suggested that the item be moved to the end of the agenda so some matters could be possibly clarified by the discussion on the other items following this request. Mr. Fojtik stated that the public comment period could be reopened and Mr. Thorns could get responses to his questions now. Mr. Bowen stated that the Commission needs to act on the annexation petition as that is the matter on the table for consideration. Legal matters should not be an issue for discussion and he agreed with Mr. Borsuk that the request should be evaluated in the context of itself and not how it relates to other items on the agenda. Motion by Bowen to approve the Poberezny Road annexation as requested. Seconded by Borsuk. Motion carried 6 -3. Ayes - Borsuk /Bowen /Fojtik/Hinz/Monte/ Nollenberger. Nays -Thoms /Palmeri /Propp. III. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A VOCATIONAL SCHOOL ON PROPERTY DIRECTLY NORTH OF 4300 POBEREZNY ROAD The petitioner requests approval of a Conditional Use Permit and approval of a Development Plan for the development of a vocational school on a greenfield site located north of 4300 Poberezny Road currently included in a direct annexation request to the City of Oshkosh from the Town of Nekimi. Mr. Nau presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area. He stated that if the annexation request is approved, the zoning designation would be M -lPD for this area. He reviewed the site plan and proposed use on the 24 acre parcel and explained that the use may be expanded in the future. He also commented that the development had potential to spur more action along the Highway 41 corridor and reviewed the proposed building features and parking lot. The parking lot is recommended to be redesigned and relocated as it currently is shown to be 15 feet inside the 25 -foot front yard setback area but it does meet minimum parking requirements. He also reviewed the building elevations and stated that a pedestrian walk is recommended to be installed at such a time when sidewalks would be available on Poberezny Road. He also commented that the Fire Department has requested that a fire lane is provided on the north side of the proposed building and staff is recommending that the overhead access door shown on the site plans be removed or incorporated into some type of vehicular access. Lighting, signage, landscaping, and stormwater management plans have not yet been submitted and will be required to be approved prior to building permits being issued. He also discussed the shared driveway proposed with the Veterans' Museum currently under construction which would require a base standard modification for a zero -foot setback and reviewed the conditions recommended for this request. Plan Commission Minutes June 15, 2010 Mr. Hinz questioned if the purpose of the overhead door was known. Mr. Nau replied negatively and stated that a narrative was not included with this request. Mr. Thorns inquired why a shared driveway was being proposed and if the building could be moved back instead. Mr. Burich responded that the Veterans' Museum was developed with the concept that additional development would occur to the north of the site and clarified that the zero -foot setback referred to in the staff report was for the driveway only and had no affect on the setback for the building itself. Mr. Thorns also inquired if the Veterans' Museum was agreeable to the shared driveway concept. Mr. Nau replied that they found it acceptable. Mr. Thorns then questioned why the parking lot was located in front of the building facing the road as it would be more aesthetically pleasing to locate the parking lot behind the facility. Mr. Burich responded that the City has no design standards that require this concept to be enforced however the Commission could recommend that the parking area be relocated for aesthetic purposes. Mr. Palmeri inquired if there was any public transportation that would reach this site. Mr. Burich replied that Chris Strong, the Director of Transportation, did not express any concerns regarding the matter when the site plans were reviewed. Mr. Palmeri commented that he did not feel that a school should be developed on a site that did not have public transportation available to it. He also commented that the proposed site plan did not come close to criteria suggested in the Vision Oshkosh document. He felt that there was available space in the city that could be utilized for this project rather than constructing a new building in this area. Ms. Lohry questioned why we are allowing a shared driveway between the properties and suggested that a road be installed between the developments instead that could service future development to the east. Mr. Burich responded that there would not be development to the east that would be accessed from Poberezny Road. There is a navigable waterway in this area that would prevent development in some locations and from an efficiency standpoint; any development on the east side would be accessed from Waupun Road. Mr. Borsuk stated that the Vision Oshkosh document was non - binding and he felt that development such as this project that meets current standards should be welcomed and that if recommendations in the Vision Oshkosh report are to be considered when reviewing developments, it should be incorporated into City ordinance and applied to all developments equally. He questioned what the use for the school would be considered. Mr. Burich replied that the school use is institutional however there is not a zoning designation for such use. Plan Commission Minutes June 15, 2010 Mr. Buck added that the vocational school is on leased property and could cease to exist in time and the underlying zoning classification of the M -lPD would allow light industrial or commercial use and could be adapted to other uses without any change to the zoning classification. Ms. Lohry inquired if the site was to be used for a school, did that mean that it would be a tax exempt property. Mr. Burich responded that since the property is leased, it will be on the tax roll and would not be considered exempt. Mr. St. Peter stated that the Veterans' Museum's deed dated June 24, 2008 included a statement that the grantee consents to annexation to the City when adjacent properties are annexed. He also commented that the developer is apparently present and still has not spoken about their project. Mr. Bowen inquired if the Town was objecting to the proposed use. Mr. St. Peter replied that they did not. Deborah Heath, Dean of Transportation and Construction Technology for Fox Valley Technical College, stated that she has been working on the project since its conception and that they have been looking at expanding their welding training facilities for the past few years and already have a leased building in the city. The project went up for bids and the college has reviewed 8 -10 proposals and the selection process was very specific. They wished to move into the new facility by October of 2010 and considered visibility, access, and cost effectiveness to base their decision on a site which the chosen location was Poberezny Road. She further stated that they did not feel that bus lines to the facility were necessary at this time as their other facility on Spanbauer Road is not accessible by bus service and has not had an effect on attendance as they currently have 200 students at that site. Their plans were to lease the facility for ten years and the development would be operating with a well and holding tank until such time that City water and sewer services would be installed in the area. Ms. Propp questioned if FVTC was also considering the site at 1200 South Koeller Street as an alternate location if this site did not work out. Ms. Heath responded that FVTC rejected this site's proposal in the bid process and was not considering it as an alternative location at this time. Mr. Borsuk inquired if they would consider it as a second choice if the Poberezny Road site was not approved. Ms. Heath replied that the Poberezny Road site was their selected site in the bid process and if it did not receive approval, FVTC would possibly have to go back out for bids again before selecting an alternate location. Dennis Schwab, 601 Oregon Street, stated that his agency was the developer for the site and that the parcel would be a taxable entity. He further commented that they were in a position to agree to all conditions recommended for this request and that he felt this development would open up the corridor for additional developments. He felt that it would create a good tax base for the City and was a natural growth pattern and beneficial for the community. Plan Commission Minutes June 15, 2010 Ms. Lohry questioned if the land not included in the development would be kept in a state of natural habitat. Mr. Schwab responded that he was not the owner of the land in question. Richard Gabert, owner of the land, stated that it would be left as agricultural use. Mr. Thorns stated that he felt the Vision Oshkosh report was relevant and that the parking lot should not be as visible with its location in the front of the structure and questioned if its location could be moved to the rear of the site. Mr. Schwab replied that he would have to discuss the issue with FVTC but he felt that the development as proposed was not any different than other sites that currently exist on the frontage road. Mr. Thorns stated that this would be a planned development area and he did not feel that we should continue to allow projects to be developed as ones previously done just because they already exist. Mr. Schwab responded that he did not feel it was appropriate to expect their development to adhere to different standards than other projects that were previously developed. Ron Metz, representing the Veterans' Museum, stated that they did not have any objections to this development and he was satisfied with the 25 -foot setback for the parking lot in front of the structure. He further stated that their property would be an island remaining in the Town and he was hoping to be a good neighbor with the adjacent development. Kip Golden of Keller, Inc., N216 State Road 55, Kaukauna, stated that their time frame for this development was very tight as they would only have three months to build this project. He further stated that they came up with different designs for the development and could move the parking lot out of the setback area. The landscape islands in the parking lot, the fire lane, and pedestrian access included in the conditions would not be a problem and the overhead door included in the elevation plans was a mistake. He displayed revised elevation plans which included the removal of the overhead door with the addition of windows and EFIS on other sides of the structure but they did not desire to meet the first condition recommended for this request to add architectural elements to the east facade as that was the area proposed for future expansion and was not visible from the roadway. He also commented that it was not technically a "green building" but would be utilizing 75% recycled steel for the structure with lighting and HVAC elements of high efficiency and ADA approved throughout the building. Mr. Vajgrt inquired where the parking stalls that were located in the setback would be placed. Mr. Golden responded that they would leave the layout of the parking lot as presented and move the structure back to provide the additional area to meet the 25 -foot setback requirement. They did not wish to place parking stalls behind the structure as that area was going to possibly be used for future expansion of the building. Mr. Poberezny commented that he thought today's action was to consider the annexation of the property only and it appeared that the development on the site was already designed. Plan Commission Minutes June 15, 2010 Mr. Bowen stated that the Vision Oshkosh report assists the Commission in making decisions that would provide the community with elements of development that they desire to see and those large parking lots that create a sea of asphalt are not a good development pattern to continue. He did not feel that this parking lot layout was that objectionable other than it needs to be relocated out of the setback area and he did not see that the opinions of the Vision Oshkosh report would prevent this development from receiving the necessary approval. Mr. Borsuk commented that he understood the community's desire for higher design standards for development but the Commission needs to consider these desires in an appropriate context and he felt that this was still a positive project. Mr. Palmeri stated that if the Commission approved of this development in its current form, the Vision Oshkosh report is meaningless and quoted excerpts from said report. He further commented that it appeared to be a big box structure that does not come close to the expectations in the Vision Oshkosh report and he did not agree with the opinion of FVTC that bus services to the location were not important as we should be considering the citizen's needs. He also felt that we should be encouraging the reuse of available spaces as both the Vision Oshkosh report and the Comprehensive Plan designate this as important criteria for development. Mr. Thorns stated that the City's ordinance and design standards should support the elements of the Comprehensive Plan and it does not and it seems that we continue to go down the path of approving developments as they are in line with what was always acceptable in the past. He felt that the elements of the Vision Oshkosh report and the Comprehensive Plan should be considered when reviewing proposed developments and the practice of continuing to address each request as a single item should cease. Ms. Propp commented that she did not feel that applying higher standards to this development would be fair to FVTC and that some of the issues being brought up were items that would be more appropriate to discuss during the joint workshop with the Common Council scheduled after today's meeting. Mr. Monte stated that he did not feel it was necessary to require the east facade to include architectural elements similar to the north and south facades as the petitioner had clarified that those elements were not present due to the future expansion plans in that area and its lack of visibility to the public should not detract from the development. Motion by Monte to amend the conditions recommended for this request to remove condition #I to include architectural elements on the east fa(ade of the structure. Seconded by Borsuk. Motion carried 7 -2. Ayes- BorsukBowen/Fojtik /Hinz /Palmeri/Monte/ Nollenberger. Nays - Thoms / Propp. Motion by Monte to approve the conditional use permit /development plan for the establishment of a vocational school on property directly north of 4300 Poberezny Road as requested with the following conditions: I- Base standard modification to allow a zero foot setback for proposed shared driveway. 2- Parking lot to be located entirely outside of the required 25 foot front yard setback area. 3- Interior landscape islands are included on final plan submittal. 4- Fire lane is provided on the north side of the proposed building. S- Future pedestrian walk leading to public right -of -way is indicated on final plans. Plan Commission Minutes June 15, 2010 6- Overhead door on north elevation is removed unless vehicular access is provided to the door. Seconded by Borsuk. Motion carried 7 -2. Ayes - Borsuk /Bowen /Fojtik /Hinz /Propp/Monte/ Nollenberger. Nays -Thoms /Palmeri. Mr. Bowen excused himself from the meeting at 5:40 pm. IV. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A VOCATIONAL SCHOOL AT 1200 SOUTH KOELLER STREET The petitioner requests approval of a Conditional Use Permit and approval of a Development Plan for the establishment of a vocational school in a portion of the former Copps Grocery Store at 1200 South Koeller Street. Mr. Buck presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area and the land use map for said area. He stated that a portion of the existing structure would be utilized for the vocational school with the remaining area still vacant projected to be rented to a more traditional office /service /retail use. He further stated that this site had good access, was serviced by current transit routes, and would utilize a vacant structure with a viable development that would also promote additional use of services in the surrounding area. The development would utilize the existing structure with modifications made to the interior of the building with no change to existing stormwater, landscaping, or parking areas. He also mentioned that the parking lot is in a questionable state and may require some maintenance. Mr. Borsuk inquired if there was a reason that the entire site was not reviewed as a whole with requirements that the parking lot be brought up to current ordinance standards. Mr. Buck responded that it was an infill project and in that case the area of redevelopment was addressed only and not the entire site. Mr. Monte stated that the narrative included with this application from Rollie Winter & Associates makes reference to if they were not the selected supplier in the request of proposal process, they would withdraw their application for the conditional use permit. He questioned since FVTC has already indicated that this proposal was not accepted and not being considered as an alternative choice, should we continue to address this request. Mr. Buck replied that the conditional use permit has not been requested to be withdrawn by the petitioner at this time so we are required to proceed with this request. Mr. St. Peter stated that if this request is for the same project as discussed in the last item, he urged the Commission to approve it. He further stated that the Town supports FVTC but he felt the annexation petition would not withstand a legal challenge. Mr. Schwab commented that Mr. Winter's agency was not the chosen proposal for this development and was not being considered as an alternate proposal either so he did not see the reason to discuss this request. If their proposal did not receive approval for the Poberezny Road site, it would be up to FVTC who has already indicated that they would be bidding out for new proposals. Plan Commission Minutes 10 June 15, 2010 Grant Schwab, 601 Oregon Street, stated that Mr. Winter's narrative indicates that he would withdraw his request if not the selected supplier which he is not so he also did not see any reason to continue consideration of this item. Mr. Nollenberger inquired if the staff had any direct communication with the petitioner regarding withdrawing the request. Mr. Buck responded that the petitioner has not contacted the office and indicated he wished to withdraw the item from the agenda. Mr. Palmeri commented that the Plan Commission had given approval to the previous item for the vocational school however the official approval has yet to be granted by the Common Council. Mr. Buck stated that the conditional use permit for the use of the site still was required to be reviewed by the Plan Commission regardless of the potential outcome of the project. Mr. Palmeri stated that he felt this proposed development was good planning and that the facility on this site could provide all necessary amenities to the students utilizing it and would be good for all parties involved. Mr. Thorns stated that he did not think this was a good site for the proposed use and that it was more appropriate for commercial uses. Mr. Hinz disagreed and commented that he has seen such a development in another city and it was beneficial to the retail uses surrounding it as it spurred growth of their establishments surrounding the site due to the students patronizing area businesses. Mr. Borsuk stated that he agreed with this concept and supported the re -use of an existing site. He further stated that although it was not being considered as a default site for this development from what was discussed, he would be in support of this request. Mr. Fojtik commented that he felt it was a very intriguing re -use of an existing vacant site. Mr. Nollenberger also supported this request and commented that if he had a choice, he would go with this request rather than the Poberezny Road location. Motion by Monte to approve a conditional use permit /development plan for the establishment of a vocational school at 1200 South Koeller Street as requested. Seconded by Borsuk. Motion carried 8 -1. Ayes- Borsuk/Fojtik /Hinz /Palmeri /Propp/Monte/ Vajgrt/Nollenberger. Nays - Thoms. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 5:55 pm. (Hinz/Propp) Respectfully submitted, Darryn Burich Director of Planning Services Plan Commission Minutes 11 June 15, 2010