Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutesPLAN COMMISSION MINUTES September 7, 2010 PRESENT: David Borsuk, Ed Bowen, Jeffrey Thorns, Thomas Fojtik, Tony Palmeri, Kathleen Propp EXCUSED: John Hinz, Kent Monte, Donna Lohry, Robert Vajgrt, Karl Nollenberger STAFF: Darryn Burich, Director of Planning Services; David Buck, Principal Planner; Jeffrey Nau, Associate Planner; Steve 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 August 17, 2010 were approved with one correction noted on page 4, paragraph 7 that Ms. Krueger stated that they did speak with "many" neighbors that stopped in the tavern about the request rather than "any ". (Borsuk/Bowen) I. FOUR -LOT LAND DIVISION /CERTIFIED SURVEY MAP AT THE 600 BLOCK OF FARMINGTON AVENUE This request is a certified survey map for a four -lot land division of a 1.59 Acre /69,320 square foot parcel to create four parcels of land suitable for the existing single - family home and the development of new single - family lots. Mr. Buck presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area, the current land uses, the certified survey map, and the conditions recommended for this request. He also stated that the proposed lot sizes meet code requirements and the land use would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the surrounding land use in the area. Ms. Propp questioned if the conditions recommended for this request relating to installing the required improvements and the payment in lieu of parkland dedication fees was appropriate as this land division only involved four lots and was not requesting approval of a plat. Mr. Burich responded that the requirements were the same as a plat and the conditions were placed on the request to ensure that the petitioner is aware of development requirements. Motion by Propp to approve the four -lot land division /certified survey map at the 600 block of Farmington Avenue as requested with the following conditions: 1. The sub divider shall meet the same general requirements as a plat and make arrangements to install the required improvements as provided in Sections 3 0- 73 and 3 0- 74 of the Municipal Code. 2. The sub divider shall pay the city a proportionate payment in lieu of parkland dedication as outlined in Section 30 -71 (J) (6) (c) of the Municipal Code. Seconded by Borsuk. Motion carried 6 -0. Plan Commission Minutes September 7, 2010 II. AUTHORIZATION TO ACQUIRE PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF STATE HIGHWAY 91 AT JAMES ROAD The City of Oshkosh Department of Public Works is requesting approval to acquire approximately 55 acres of land from the subject property owners for construction of a storm drainage detention area. Mr. Nau presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area, the current zoning classifications and existing land uses in said area, as well as a diagram of the proposed stormwater detention facility. He stated that the detention basin area had been revised since the official mapping request and now only includes one property owner. He also reviewed a map displaying the combined mitigation strategies for Sawyer Creek and Campbell Creek watersheds and the Sawyer Creek watershed map. Steve Gohde, Assistant Director of Public Works, gave a more detailed explanation of the various maps displayed and discussed the Sawyer Creek and Campbell Creek watersheds and the benefits in the Taft Avenue and Westfield Street area that would be a result of this proposed detention basin. He also discussed some of the other projects either completed or in progress to help alleviate the flooding issues experienced by the City. He reviewed the map of the proposed detention basin area and explained the differences in the original layout of the area during the official mapping process and the current proposal. He stated that this proposed detention basin will only impact one property owner whereas the initial proposal was impacting three landowners. He noted that there were some wetland areas indicated on the map for the detention basin and stated that they would be working with the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to mitigate any wetland area issues. He also commented that the revised design will detain 23% more stormwater than the initial layout by enlarging the size of the basin and that no water quality credit would be obtained from this basin. Ms. Propp inquired if a larger area was officially mapped than required. Mr. Gohde responded negatively and stated that the area was similar in size but a slightly different area than what was officially mapped and this could be adjusted to reflect the revised design. Mr. Thorns questioned if we need to expand the officially mapped area to accommodate the revision before we move forward with the land acquisition request. Mr. Gohde replied that it would not be necessary as the official mapping was not required to acquire the land. Mr. Burich added that the official mapping of an area is usually done years in advance as a place holder to ensure that the property is not developed, however in this case, the project is moving forward shortly after the official mapping process. Mr. Thorns asked for clarification of which detention basins were in the process of being constructed or planned to be built. Mr. Gohde replied that the detention basin at Perry Tipler School was already constructed and the basin in the Oakwood Road area was in progress. He explained the mitigation strategies map for the Sawyer Creek and Campbell Creek watersheds in greater detail and how the development of the detention basin in this area would benefit the city by removing areas from the 100 year flood plain. Plan Commission Minutes September 7, 2010 Ms. Propp questioned if the detention basin in the Westhaven area will contribute some benefit to this situation. Mr. Gohde responded that it would have a minor impact on the watershed as a whole and that the City is continuing to pursue more studies on the matter. Mark Steichen, Boardman Law Firm, 1 South Pinckney Street, Madison, representing Wes and Shirley Radloff the property owners, stated that he was there to voice their opposition to the proposed land acquisition. He stated that this was prime agricultural land which the owners wished to continue to use as such and its use was consistent with both the rural preservation sections of the Comprehensive Plan and its current zoning classification. He felt that these factors should be taken into consideration as well as the fact that existing agricultural lands are shrinking as cities are expanding. He also stated that he felt that staff was understating the DNR and Corp of Engineer's involvement as both agencies will be required to approve the project and referenced the staff report that indicated that there were wetlands in the proposed basin location. He discussed the initial proposal that impacted three separate property owners and the City's delineation of the wetland areas and noted the location of wetland areas within the proposed detention basin area. He stated that the Radloff s had written a letter to the DNR in May inquiring if the City had obtained permits for the proposed basin as if the basin would be located in an area that included wetlands, a permit would be required. He distributed a copy of a response letter from the DNR that indicated that the City had not yet applied for a permit to construct the detention basin. He also distributed copies of an email from the DNR last week that indicated that the City had submitted a wetland delineation report however it has not yet been reviewed as it was not submitted with an application. He commented that there was no mention of discussions with the City regarding the matter and no application had been submitted to the Corp of Engineers as yet. He further commented that wetland areas were taken very seriously and the DNR will look at if there are alternatives to this location that do not affect wetlands. He has not yet seen plans and specifications for this project and commented that it was easier to acquire land from one property owner than three; however a determination of necessity needs to be completed first to conclude the City's need to take this specific property. He commented that the City needs to find out from the DNR and Corp of Engineers if permits would be issued for this project before proceeding with the land acquisition as property may be acquired that the City does not have a need for if the detention basin could not be constructed at this location. No costs are currently noted in the City's budget for the detention basin and fees would be due to the Radloffs if the acquired land is not used for its intended purpose. He further stated that this action would be contested in court and the Court of Appeals will have the final decision on the matter. The detention basin may be substantially different than proposed after review by the DNR and Corp of Engineers and the land could not be returned to the property owner at a later date. The costs to acquire this land will not be the current assessed value but would be based on the highest and best use of the land when it comes to negotiating the sale. Mr. Borsuk stated that he would like to hear the City's response to this presentation before proceeding with further discussion on the matter. Mr. Gohde stated that studies have been completed and established the need to address flooding issues in the City. The determination of necessity has already been met however the application to the DNR & Corp of Engineers can not be submitted until the City owns the land. He further stated that there were pockets of wetlands in this location however they were small and can be avoided while still constructing the detention basin. Mr. Thorns inquired if the City has seen any precedent set by the DNR where they allow detention ponds or developments in wetland areas. Plan Commission Minutes September 7, 2010 Mr. Gohde responded that wetland mitigation is a known process that the City and State is familiar with and was most recently addressed for the Highway 41 reconstruction process. Mr. Borsuk asked for clarification of what the Commission members should be evaluating when considering this request as to what is relevant discussion for the Plan Commission and what should be addressed at the Common Council level. Mr. Burich replied that the land use issue was what should be considered at this level and is the request consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and related documents for stormwater management planning. Mr. Thorns questioned if alternative sites were considered concerning the placement of the detention basin. Mr. Gohde responded that two branches of Sawyer Creek come together at this point and displayed on the map where this area was located. He also explained the elevation of this area and how it would increase the amount of volume of water that could be stored in the proposed detention basin at this location. Mr. Thorns inquired if this basin was planned in addition to the detention basin to be constructed in the Westhaven area. Mr. Gohde replied affirmatively. Mr. Borsuk questioned how much of the area on the mitigation strategies map would be directly addressed by the construction of this basin. Mr. Gohde responded that a vast majority could be attributed to the detention basin at this location. Mr. Palmeri commented that he understood that it was premature to have permits issued at this point but questioned if the information could be obtained informally as far as the potential of getting a permit to construct the detention basin in this location prior to the land acquisition. Mr. Gohde replied that the pockets of wetlands were very small and could be worked around and he did not feel there would be any problems with obtaining the permit once the land is acquired. Mr. Palmeri then asked if the DNR and Corp of Engineers would provide a verbal indication of their intent to approve a permit prior to the formal application being submitted. Mr. Gohde responded that pre- concurrences can no longer be obtained from these agencies due to budget cuts. Mr. Borsuk stated that the detention basin would have a substantial affect on flooding in the city and it is a consistent land use and is also consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He further commented that the worst case scenario would be if the land was acquired and could not be used for this purpose, the industrial park development was expanding in this general direction and the land could be utilized for this purpose instead. Mr. Thorns commented that the Plan Commission is not responsible for considering the cost of the land acquisition just the land use issue itself and detention ponds are proven to be necessary even if Plan Commission Minutes September 7, 2010 they are not included in the Comprehensive Plan now. There is a necessity to alleviate the flooding concerns and the legal aspects of the land acquisition should not be addressed at this level as the application process is something to be considered at the Common Council level. Mr. Palmeri questioned if using the land for industrial park development if the detention basin project would not be approved meets the criteria for eminent domain standards. Mr. Burich responded that the industrial park development suggestion would be an end use for the property only if something would fall through with the detention basin project. He commented that the issue at hand was if a detention basin at this location would be appropriate land use. Mr. Palmeri stated that he felt we needed to be 99.9% certain that the detention basin could be constructed at this location as the public good was the justification for the eminent domain action. He further stated that he had concerns about the wetland issues raised however other alternatives do not appear to be feasible. Mr. Thorns commented that a portion of the property may contain wetlands however it was not the entire site and it was an issue that would not be answered today. He felt that there was a substantial amount of area available to construct the detention basin while avoiding the pockets of wetlands. Ms. Propp stated that she was confident that there was a high probability that City staff and the consultants working on this project expect to achieve success with the permitting process for the detention basin construction. Mr. Palmeri commented that in the original proposal no wetlands were mentioned and based on the change in the proposal that is being presented today, there was a possibility that a problem exists. Mr. Thorns questioned if the areas marked on the detention facility map were the only wetlands on the property to be acquired. Mr. Gohde responded that the City hired a wetlands specialist who walked the entire property to ascertain the location of any wetlands which have been noted on the map. Motion by Thoms to approve the authorization to acquire property located north of State Highway 91 at James Road Seconded by Borsuk. Motion carried 6 -0. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Burich distributed copies of the spreadsheet that was handed out at the last workshop showing how planning priorities were ranked by Commission members. From the responses submitted, priorities were determined to be updating planned development regulations, creating a riverfront overlay ordinance, updating the sign ordinance, and tree preservation ordinance. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 4:55 pm. (Borsuk/Propp) Respectfully submitted, Darryn Burich Director of Planning Services Plan Commission Minutes September 7, 2010