HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutesPLAN COMMISSION MINUTES
November 16, 2010
PRESENT: David Borsuk, Jeffrey Thorns, Thomas Fojtik, John Hinz, Tony Palmeri, Donna Lohry,
Robert Vajgrt, Karl Nollenberger
EXCUSED: Ed Bowen, Kathleen Propp, Kent Monte
STAFF: Darryn Burich, Director of Planning Services; David Buck, Principal Planner; Jeffrey
Nau, Associate Planner; Allen Davis, Director of Community Development; 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 November 2, 2010 were approved as presented. (Thoms/Lohry)
L DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT AT 4200 POBEREZNY ROAD
The petitioner requests a development plan amendment at the recently completed FVTC welding
training facility at 4200 Poberezny Road involving "off- premise" signage to be installed in a ground
sign on the property. FVTC is requesting to have the "Miller Electric" logo installed in the ground
sign. Aside from the off - premise issue, the sign appears to meet all other code requirements.
Mr. Burich presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area and stated that FVTC had
previously received conditional use permit and planned development approval for their new training
facility. He reviewed the site plan displaying the area where the sign was proposed to be located and
explained the zoning ordinance definition of off - premise signage. He further explained the reasoning
for the technical college's request to add the "Miller" logo to their signage and reviewed the sign
design and conditions recommended for this request.
Mr. Thorns questioned if the Plan Commission had reviewed signage for this site at the time the
planned development was approved.
Mr. Burich responded that signage plans may not have been submitted at the time of the planned
development approval and providing the proposed sign meets all code requirements, it is customarily
approved through the usual zoning review process. This sign meets all code requirements but was
coming back for approval of an amendment to the planned development due to the addition of the
"Miller" logo to the sign.
Mr. Thorns then questioned if the proposed sign would block the view of the veterans memorial.
Mr. Burich replied that the size and height of the sign meets all code requirements and he felt the
digital billboard sign to the south was much more obtrusive than the FVTC proposed sign.
Mr. Thorns inquired if the Plan Commission could request that the placement of the sign be moved
back further from its proposed location.
Plan Commission Minutes
November 16, 2010
Mr. Burich responded negatively and reiterated that the proposed sign meets all code requirements
other than off - premise issue.
Jill McEwen, Vice President of Administrative Services for Fox Valley Technical College, 1825 North
Bluemound Drive, Appleton, stated that they worked with Jones Sign on the development and
placement of the signage. She further stated that she discussed its location with a representative of the
Veterans Museum and they have approved the location of their proposed sign. She also discussed their
20 year relationship with the Miller business and their reasoning to request to add their name to the
signage for the site.
Motion by Nollenberger to approve the development plan amendment at 4200 Poberezny Road
as requested with the following conditions:
1. Base standard modification to permit the ground sign with Miller identification as
proposed with no other changes permitted to the sign without approval.
Seconded by Borsuk. Motion carried 7 -0 -1. Ayes Borsuk/Thoms/Fojtik /Hinz /PalmerilVajgrt/
Nollenberger. Abstained- Lohry.
II. GRANT PRIVILEGE IN THE STREET FOR PLACEMENT OF A STEAM PIT AND
STEAM CONDENSATE LINE ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF HIGH AVENUE
BETWEEN KOLF SPORTS CENTER AND THE NEW ACADEMIC BUILDING
The petitioner is requesting a privilege in the right -of -way for the previous installation of a private
steam condensate line along the south side of High Avenue and the construction of a new steam pit
near the southeast corner of High Avenue and Rockwell Street. These utilities are required as part of
the new academic building currently under construction.
Mr. Nau presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area and the zoning classifications
in said area. He explained that the steam condensate line that was constructed in this location in 2001
without approval of a privilege in the street was included with this request as well as approval of the
proposed steam pit. He reviewed the location of both the steam pit and condensate line and stated that
the Department of Public Works has reviewed and approved of its location. He also reviewed the
conditions recommended for this request.
Mr. Fojtik inquired if the steam pit would serve other buildings on the campus.
Mr. Nau responded that the request was to accommodate the new academic building under
construction.
Chris Miles, 800 Algoma Boulevard, representing the University, stated that the staff report referred to
geothermal piping along High Avenue and she wished to note the correction that it should be steam
condensate lines. She further stated that the original lines were installed possibly 30 years ago and that
the University was not aware at that time of the requirement to have a privilege in street granted. She
commented that the steam condensate lines would serve the whole campus whereas the steam pit was
for the new academic building only.
Mr. Thorns questioned the amount of insurance coverage referenced in the conditions for this request
and if this was an adequate amount.
Plan Commission Minutes
November 16, 2010
Mr. Nau replied that it is the standard coverage on all privilege in street requests and the conditions are
recommended by the Department of Public Works.
Motion by Nollenberger to approve the privilege in the street for placement of a steam pit and
steam condensate line along the south side of High Avenue between Kolf Sports Center and the
new academic building as requested with the following conditions:
1) The private steam condensate line and steam pit be installed in a manner that is approved by the
Dept. of Public Works with no modifications or changes in construction procedure without prior
approval by the Dept. of Public Works.
2) If no longer needed, the private steam condensate line and steam pit be properly abandoned and
removed in accordance with City standards and under the direction of the Dept. of Public
Works.
3) Any problem which may arise as a result of the placement of the private steam condensate line
and steam pit be the responsibility of the petitioner, contractors and owner to correct in
coordination with the Dept. of Public Works.
4) All appropriate permits be obtained prior to the start of placement of the private steam
condensate line and steam pit.
5) The steam condensate line and steam pit be modified or removed immediately upon the request
of the City.
6) The facility be part of and documented with Digger's Hotline system.
7) The petitioner and contractors secure and submit 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.
8) It is the responsibility of the petitioner 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 upon 10 days notice.
9) The petitioner and contractors execute hold harmless agreements with the City.
Seconded by Vajgrt. Motion carried 8 -0.
III. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR AN ADAPTIVE REUSE OF A
COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 1015 WEST 10 AVENUE
The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit for an adaptive reuse of a property /commercial
structure located at 1015 W. 10 Avenue to establish a therapeutic spa within a residential district.
Mr. Nau presented the item and discussed the previous history of the site and reviewed the site,
surrounding area, zoning classifications in said area, and current land uses. He discussed the services
that would be provided by the therapeutic spa and that proposed hours of operation would be from 8:00
am until 8:00 pm, Monday through Saturday. He reviewed the site plan and stated that the two
separate parcels would be combined and the existing parking area would be seal coated and striped.
The exterior structure would be painted and a non - illuminated wall sign would be installed. He also
discussed the vegetative screening along property lines and on the sides of the parking lot and the
required handicapped parking stall. He also stated that this was an appropriate land use in a residential
area as the Comprehensive Plan considers neighborhood businesses appropriate in these areas provided
that they offer services to the surrounding area. He also reviewed the conditions recommended for this
request.
Plan Commission Minutes
November 16, 2010
Mr. Borsuk inquired about the parking requirements as it did not appear that the number of parking
stalls on the site were adequate.
Mr. Nau responded that the petitioner was proposing to install additional parking along the west side of
the structure at the time West 10 Avenue would be reconstructed.
Mr. Hinz questioned if the planters proposed to be located along the sidewalk area would be too high
and may obstruct visibility.
Mr. Nau replied that specifics on the materials that would be placed in the planters had not been
submitted and this issue would be addressed during the official site plan review process.
Mr. Fojtik inquired about the 5 -foot tall screening for the parking area referenced in the conditions and
if that was the standard height.
Mr. Nau responded that 5 feet was the minimum height for screening purposes.
Mr. Borsuk again questioned if the current parking was adequate for the site.
Mr. Nau replied that based on the size the structure, the parking stalls did not meet the required amount
however he was not sure of what proportion of the square footage of the entire building would be
utilized.
Mr. Borsuk suggested that a condition could be added to this request to address this issue.
Mr. Thorns stated that he had concerns with the impact this use would have on the neighborhood such
as the parking issue and questioned the meaning of "similarly licensed professionals" that may be
renting out rooms in the structure.
Mr. Nau responded that individuals renting space on the site would be offering similar spa treatments
as detailed in the staff report.
Mr. Thorns also questioned if the proposed planters near the sidewalk area would create visibility
issues.
Mr. Nau replied that the planters would be parallel to the sidewalk and would be more flower based
and should not create a visibility obstruction.
Mr. Buck added that the planters were proposed in front of the building to define the drive aisle as
there currently is no curbing on the site and that the 15 feet for visibility limits what materials can be
placed in the planters.
Mr. Nau revisited the site plan to review the planter locations and designated drive aisles.
Mr. Thorns stated that it did not appear to be any different than what residential homes place in their
front yards for ornamental reasons.
Tammy Graff, 8667 Edgewater Ridge, Omro, petitioner for the request, stated that the planters were
intended for flowers only and placement of the planters would take visibility issues into consideration.
Plan Commission Minutes
November 16, 2010
Brian Graff, 8667 Edgewater Ridge, Omro, added that there is no curbing on the entire frontage of this
site and City staff suggested that they find some way to control customers accessing the site by
defining specific drive aisles until such a time that the street would be reconstructed and curbing
installed. He also commented that the handicapped parking stall referenced in the conditions would be
designated as the closest stall to the building.
Mr. Borsuk questioned if the petitioner would be agreeable to adding a condition regarding the
addition of parking stalls on the west side of the building.
Ms. Graff responded affirmatively.
Mr. Hinz inquired if parking stalls would be added on the west side of the site, would the petitioner be
requesting a second driveway access be created.
Mr. Buck replied that the site is only allowed one drive access and has adequate room to add parking
stalls to the west side of the structure providing adequate parking for code requirements. It was
discussed that it would be reasonable to wait until West 10 Avenue was reconstructed to do these
improvements since this would close off the open access to the site with the installation of curbing and
a new curb cut could be placed where the drive aisle would be accessible to both parking areas.
Mr. Thorns questioned when West 10 Avenue was scheduled to be reconstructed.
Steve Gohde, Assistant Director of Public Works, responded that it was not in the Capital
Improvement Program in the next five years.
Ms. Graff stated that she did not feel that parking would create an issue at the site as parking was
allowed on the street and that employees at the site would only be working 3 -4 hours a day at this
location as part of their treatments are performed at customer's homes and in nursing home facilities.
Motion by Palmeri to approve the conditional use permit request for an adaptive reuse of a
commercial structure located at 1015 West 10` Avenue as requested with the following
conditions:
1. Two subject parcels are combined.
2. Minimum 5-foot tall screen is provided on the west and east sides of the parking area to act as
a screen from the adjacent residential uses.
3. One stall in the parking area be reserved for handicap access.
Seconded by Vajgrt. Motion carried 7 -0 -1. Ayes Borsuk /Thoms /Fojtik /Hinz /PalmerilVajgrt/
Nollenberger. Abstained- Lohry. (She is a customer of the spa facility.)
Mr. Nollenberger left the meeting at 4: 40 pm.
IV. DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT AND LAND DIVISION APPROVAL FOR
PROPERTY IN THE MARION ROAD /JACKSON STREET/PEARL AVENUE
REDEVELOPMENT AREA
A modification from the original Planned Developments and approval of a land division to divide the
subject area into separate and distinct parcels of land with shared parking and stormwater facilities.
Plan Commission Minutes
November 16, 2010
Mr. Buck presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area, the current land uses, zoning
classifications, and the history of previous approvals for conditional use permit /planned developments.
He also reviewed the site plan and stated that the pharmacy and office structures had been built and
that the mixed -use development has yet to be constructed due to economic conditions. The Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources is requesting the land division for tracking purposes relating to the
environmental cleanup of the site and Mr. Buck reviewed the proposed lot locations and sizes and
explained the various cross access easements, cross parking agreements, and stormwater facility
maintenance agreements /easements that would need to be established to facilitate this land division.
He also reviewed the conditions recommended for this request.
Mr. Borsuk commented that he thought the development of stormwater detention ponds had been
revised to require that they are not constructed with rocks and that he did not see where any natural
vegetation was on this site in detention areas.
Mr. Buck responded that he did not see that requirement as specific conditions in the previously
approved conditional use permit /planned development resolutions.
Allen Davis, Director of Community Development, stated that he was present if there were any
questions on the proposed development plan amendment.
Motion by Thoms to approve a development plan amendment and land division approval for
property in the Marion Road/Jackson Street /Pearl Avenue redevelopment area as requested
with the following conditions:
1. Base standard modification for 0 foot side yard setbacks between the parking facilities of Lot I
& Lot 2 and between Lot 2 & Lot 3 from the required S foot setback (each side).
2. Base standard modification for 3 foot side yard setback between Lots 2 & 3 traffic circle's
western edge and Lot 4 from the required S foot.
3. Access restriction is placed on Pearl Avenue, Jackson Street and Marion Road street frontages
except where existing driveways are in place and on proposed Lot 4.
4. Cross access and parking easements /agreements are provided with approval of the City of
Oshkosh Department of Community Development.
S. Drainage, stormwater and stormwater facility maintenance easement /agreements are provided
with approval of the City of Oshkosh Department of Public Works.
Seconded by Vajgrt. Motion carried 7 -0.
V. DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW FOR THE CREATION OF A MULTIPLE FAMILY
APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST
CORNER OF OSBORN AVENUE AND MASON STREET
The applicant is requesting approval of a development plan for a multiple family dwelling
development that includes:
Six 8 -unit apartment buildings (48 units)
Five detached garage structures (48 garage stalls)
Surface off - street parking facility (62 stalls)
Stormwater detention area and open spaces
Mr. Buck presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use and
zoning classifications in said area. He stated that the parcel had received approval for a zone change in
Plan Commission Minutes
November 16, 2010
October, 2010, and a neighborhood meeting was held in November to give the neighbors an
opportunity to discuss the proposed plans with the developer. He reviewed the site plan consisting of
the above mentioned features and commented that the proposed development was less dense than what
is permitted in the R -3 zoning classification. He reviewed the large open area on the north side of the
property which would serve as a buffer area between the apartment development and the single - family
homes to the north and reviewed the drive accesses on Mason Street and Osborn Avenue. He
discussed the addition of pedestrian walks within the development and leading to the right -of -way and
signage for the site which was not submitted with the plans. Staff was recommending a base standard
modification for a monument -type sign and Mr. Buck also reviewed the landscape plan which requires
some adjustment to landscaping materials around the perimeter of the parking areas. He also discussed
additional landscaping for screening on the north side of the site and the location of the detention pond
which will require approval by the Department of Public Works. He reviewed the building elevations
and conditions recommended for this request.
Mr. Hinz suggested that the signage recommended for the site could be smaller and have two signs,
one at each drive access, instead of one larger one on the corner.
Mr. Buck responded that the developer did not specify what was desired for signage and the architect
was the party that implied that one sign located on the corner of the development would be desirable.
Ms. Lohry inquired how many bedrooms would be in the apartment units.
Mr. Buck replied that all the units were proposed to be two bedroom apartments.
Ms. Lohry also inquired if there would be a recreational area on the site for children to play and would
these apartments be low- income housing.
Mr. Buck responded that there was no designated "tot lot" on the site plans however there were
greenspace areas within the development and the apartments were not going to be low- income
housing.
Mr. Thorns questioned how staff came up with the height of ten feet for the development sign as it
seemed excessive in his opinion.
Mr. Buck replied that there was a 25 foot setback from the right -of -way for the placement of the sign
and if you install a 5 foot sign, it would allow additional space for ornamentation and vegetation
around the base of the sign which is more aesthetically pleasing.
Stuart Strey, 5037 Rivermoor Drive, Omro, stated that he owns the property adjacent to the proposed
development and there is currently a 75 foot private easement on the north side of the development site
for access to his property. He questioned if they desired to develop the currently vacant site, would
they still be able to use the easement area for an access point.
Mr. Buck responded that the driveway would have to be constructed to meet code requirements and it
would have to be relocated as it could not be constructed on private property. It may be necessary to
obtain a variance from the Board of Appeals depending on the layout of the site and location of a new
drive access.
Mr. Burich added that we currently do not have a copy of the easement agreement available and we
would have to look into the matter to see if the City was party to the easement.
Plan Commission Minutes
November 16, 2010
Mr. Palmeri left the meeting at 4:59 pm.
Cindy Smith, 1345 Kensington Avenue, stated that she attended the neighborhood meeting last week to
discuss the development plans and she still had concerns about the drainage issues. She wanted to
know how high up the whole development would be and if the sewer system in the area would be able
to handle the runoff from the site.
Mr. Buck replied that the grading plan would be required to direct the stormwater runoff to drain into
the detention pond on the site and that developments are not allowed to cause a negative impact on
neighboring properties.
Ms. Smith commented that there were flooding issues in their neighborhood and was concerned with
additional runoff from this site.
Mr. Buck responded that the detention pond was constructed to collect runoff from the site and release
it more slowly to alleviate flooding issues.
Mr. Gohde added that the City ordinance requires that post development numbers relating to
stormwater runoff are required to be less than pre - development statistics and the water flow would
have to be reduced for this site after it is developed. He further stated that this area is located on the
fringe of the Campbell Creek basin and the proposed development should not make the situation
worse.
Mr. Thorns questioned if the proposed Armory basin, when constructed, would provide flooding relief
to this area.
Mr. Gohde responded affirmatively.
Mr. Thorns then questioned if the developer is responsible to control stormwater on his property.
Mr. Gohde replied that the development has to retain stormwater runoff on its own site and cannot
discharge it to adjacent properties and would have to be connected to the City storm sewer system. He
gave further explanation of detention requirements in 10 and 100 year storm events.
Ms. Lohry inquired if the development is building up the site, how is the runoff handled.
Mr. Gohde reiterated that stormwater cannot be discharged on to neighboring properties and that
grading is monitored during the development process.
Ms. Smith questioned what the depth of the detention pond would be as she was concerned for the
children's safety in the area.
Mr. Gohde responded that plans for the detention pond have not yet been submitted at this time and the
depth would be based upon achieving the necessary requirements for the site.
Ms. Smith commented that she was concerned with the impact this development would have on the
neighborhood as this area was all single - family homes and she does not feel that the apartments would
be good for the area. She voiced her concerns again about the drainage issues, the detention pond, the
screening on the north side of the site, and the fact that there was no proposed screening for the west
Plan Commission Minutes
November 16, 2010
side or any fencing enclosing the property. She also commented about the patios on the back side of
the units and if the residents of the apartments would be able to see into her backyard. She also had
concerns about the number of people who would be living in the units, the additional traffic in the area,
and the lack of a playground area on the site for the children.
Tom Rusch, 3801 State Road 21, stated that he has been building apartments in Oshkosh for over 25
years and he did not realize that curbing was now required in the parking lot areas. He further stated
that no curbing was on Mason Street or Osborn Avenue and it seemed to make more sense to put the
curbing on the outside on the street than within the development area. He felt that the apartments were
essentially no different than single - family homes and that placing curbing along all the internal parking
areas make snow removal difficult and he hoped that the City would consider changing this
requirement for residential parking lots in the future.
Ms. Lohry inquired if the practice of pushing the snow onto the grass areas was creating a muddy
situation.
Mr. Rusch responded that it was no different than snow blowing the snow onto your lawn at a single
family residence.
Mr. Thorns questioned what the reasoning was behind the requirement for internal curbing in parking
lots.
Mr. Burich replied that it was a requirement for commercial, industrial, and multi - family uses for the
protection of landscaping and shrubbery as well as stormwater drainage purposes.
Motion by Borsuk to approve a development plan for the creation of a multiple family
apartment development on property located at the northwest corner of Osborn Avenue and
Mason Street as requested with the following conditions:
1) Curbing is installed along all parking facility areas, excluding the ingress /egress driveways.
2) Pedestrian walks, at least five foot wide, connecting all apartment buildings to each other and
refuse areas are included as well as walk areas be designated leading from the internal walk
system to both street rights -of -way.
3) Additional vegetative screening is installed along the northern property line to act as a buffer
to the properties to the north, per approval of the Department of Community Development.
4) Base standard modification to allow the subdivision /development sign, no taller than ten feet or
greater than 40 square feet of sign area (all sides).
5) Detention basin is designed without riprap above the water line and native plants be planted on
the side slopes of the basin and emergent plants on the safety shelf.
Seconded by Vajgrt.
Mr. Hinz stated that he lived in an apartment complex in the past very similar to this with no
playground area and detention ponds on site and children did not play in the ponds. He further stated
that residents in this type of housing have a tendency to keep to themselves and their children will find
places to play without providing a designated area. He commented that he felt neighbors were
concerned with the worse case scenario and he did not feel this development would have a negative
impact on the area.
Plan Commission Minutes
November 16, 2010
Mr. Thorns commented that he felt this development was appropriate land use for this site and that
detention ponds are a good thing and are a way of life in Oshkosh. He further commented that he has
not heard of any issues with ponds on other sites in the City.
Motion carried 6 -0.
VI. ZONE CHANGE FROM M -3 GENERAL INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT TO R -3
MULTIPLE DWELLING DISTRICT WITH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1400 OSBORN AVENUE
City administration is requesting a zone change from M -3 General Industrial District to R -3 Multiple
Dwelling District with Planned Development Overlay.
Mr. Buck presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area, as well as the zoning
classifications and land use in said area. He stated that the City was proposing the zone change to be
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan which recommends residential use for this area and to protect
the neighborhood from the potential for inappropriate land use and development. He referred to the
list of permitted uses in the M -3 zoning district, many of them heavy industrial uses, and commented
that the City does not want to see these types of uses surrounded by residential properties. The owner
is objecting to the zone change of his property due to the effect it may have on the marketability of the
site and the zone change to R -3 would limit the development of the site to residential uses only. The
Assessors office has verified that the tax burden will not be affected on the site until such a time that
development would occur on the parcel and the neighbors also prefer the M -3 zoning classification
instead of the recommended R -3 designation. Mr. Buck reviewed the three scenarios detailed in the
staff report which are to leave the zoning unchanged, to leave the zoning as M -3 but establish a
Planned Development Overlay, or to change the zoning to R -3 with a Planned Development Overlay
which is the staff s recommendation.
Mr. Thorns questioned if staff had considered changing the zoning classification to C -1.
Mr. Buck responded that the C -1 classification would have the same concerns with the allowable
commercial uses as the allowable manufacturing uses that could be established on the site as far as not
being compatible with the surrounding residential uses.
Mr. Thorns commented that it would provide the owner with a few more options than the R -3
classification and that he felt the M -3 zoning classification was not appropriate for this area.
Mr. Burich stated that the C -1 designation would allow R -5 Multiple Dwelling District uses which is
the most intensive use and the neighbors do not want the zone change to prevent multiple family
residential development of the site.
Mr. Thorns stated that he did not feel that leaving the M -3 zoning classification on this site was good
planning practice as it would provide the City with no control whatsoever as to the development of this
site and he did not understand why the neighbors would support retaining this zoning designation.
Mr. Buck responded that neighbors who attended the previous meeting regarding the zone change of
the Rusch property were not in favor of a zone change for this site either.
Plan Commission Minutes 10
November 16, 2010
Mr. Burich added that he attended the neighborhood meeting for the apartment development and the
zone change for this site was discussed as well and everyone at the meeting was opposed to a zone
change to R -3 as they did not want multi - family housing developed on the site.
Stuart Strey, owner of the property, stated that the storage units to the east and the Vulcan Quarry
across Osborn Avenue were both zoned M -3 and even if Mr. Rusch's property was rezoned to R -3, he
did not feel that the City should have the right to impose their will on him to change to the R -3 zoning
classification as well. The neighbors are opposed to the multi - family use and the uses allowed in the
M -3 district are not all bad. He referred to the list of permitted uses and commented that there were
184 permitted uses in the M -3 district compared to 14 uses in the R -3 district which would decrease the
marketability of his property. He concluded with his property's zoning classification should not be
changed due to the change of Mr. Rusch's parcel.
Ron Abitz, 1125 Canterbury Drive, questioned who decided that it is not feasible to have this property
zoned R -1 or R -2 instead of the R -3 classification.
Mr. Buck replied that single - family homes were not likely to be developed on this site and therefore
the zoning classification of R -1 would not be the highest and best use of the land. Even if the zoning
designation was changed to R -3, it could still be divided and developed for single - family uses.
Kris Villars, 1325 Kensington Avenue, questioned if the easement on the Rusch property of 75 feet
along the north side of the parcel would extend to the Strey property as well. She commented on the
path that water runs through the property as the land is higher in one area and voiced her concern about
drainage issues. She also discussed her concerns with children in the area while the quarry is still
operational and rumors of the Strey property being contaminated land.
Ms. Smith stated that she wanted to retain the M -3 zoning status on this property as she thought that
any offensive or inappropriate uses of the land would not be allowed.
Mr. Fojtik responded that the City cannot prevent the use of the property for any purpose providing
that it is zoned appropriately for said use.
Ms. Smith commented that she had heard rumors that this property was contaminated and questioned if
the City would do testing to determine if this was true.
Mr. Burich replied that the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) handles testing of contaminated
lands and he was aware that there was a file on this site but it was closed at this time. Any approvals
would have to be obtained from the DNR at such a time that development would commence on the
site.
Ms. Smith commented that she was torn on her feelings about the zone change issue now that she was
aware that uses could be established on the site with the M -3 zoning classification without prior notice
or public hearing to discuss the neighbors concerns or objections. She still had concerns about the
contamination on the site.
Mr. Burich responded that contaminated sites can be developed but plans would require approval by
the DNR and this site is no different than the redevelopment areas on Marion Road that are currently
under development after remediation efforts to clean up the contamination.
Plan Commission Minutes 11
November 16, 2010
Ms. Smith stated that she would like to know what Mr. Strey's intentions are for the property and the
impacts of the easement agreement and contamination issues.
Mr. Buck replied that the easement and contamination issues would have to be addressed at the time of
development of the property. The site can be cleaned up if it is determined by the DNR to be
contaminated and the easement agreement is a private document between owners of the parcels.
Without any private easement, there would be a required 25 foot setback on the site for residential
uses.
Mr. Borsuk commented that it was very interesting what is permitted in the M -3 zoning district and he
felt it was unusual that neighbors would rather have the M -3 district adjacent to their property rather
than the proposed R -3.
Mr. Fojtik questioned if there was an urgent or compelling need to act on this at the present time.
Mr. Hinz stated that the property owner was opposed to the zone change and it appears that it will
reduce the sale value of the land. He further stated that he would like to believe that the owner would
not put an offensive or inappropriate use on the site and it is his property and he should not be forced
to have the zoning classification changed.
Mr. Thorns commented that although it has been stated that the neighbors are opposed to this zone
change, there are only three present today and two of them do not seem sure of it. There will be no
additional tax burden due to this change and although it may reduce the sale value of the property, the
City should protect the neighborhood from the potential uses of this site with the M -3 zoning
classification. It is not good planning practice to leave this site as is and we have addressed these
issues in other areas of the City in the past. The quarry is still operational at this time but will cease to
exist at some point in the future.
Mr. Hinz commented that the property owner did not request this zone change and he felt that
government was overstepping their boundaries.
Ms. Lohry agreed with Mr. Thorns that the property should be changed to the R -3 zoning district as
this area has developed into a residential neighborhood and the land is still marketable with a
residential zoning classification.
Mr. Vajgrt agreed and stated that this property has been vacant for 20 years and it still could be
developed with the R -3 zoning designation.
Mr. Burich stated that down zoning is not uncommon in the city and is not always with 100% support
of the property owners. He gave several examples of previous areas that were down zoned in the city.
The change from M -3 to R -3 would limit the potential uses to 14 -15 from over 100 uses but the land
would still be marketable.
Mr. Thorns questioned if the owner could petition to have the zoning changed on the property if the
future sale of the land was for a use not permitted in the R -3 district.
Mr. Buck responded affirmatively and stated that it would come back to the Plan Commission and
Common Council for consideration at that time and the zoning could be adjusted if the proposed use
was appropriate.
Plan Commission Minutes 12
November 16, 2010
Mr. Hinz inquired if a planned development could be placed on the property but retain the M -3 zoning
classification.
Mr. Buck replied that this was scenario #2 in the staff report however the issue with this choice was
that the use could not be prevented if found to be incompatible with residential uses, but it would allow
review of the site layout only.
Motion by Borsuk to approve a zone change from M -3 General Industrial District to R -3
Multiple Dwelling District with Planned Development Overlay for property located at 1400
Osborn Avenue.
Seconded by Vajgrt. Motion carried 5 -1. Ayes - Borsuk /Thoms/Fojtik/LohrylVajgrt. Nays -Hinz.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 5:55 pm. (Vajgrt/Thoms)
Respectfully submitted,
Darryn Burich
Director of Planning Services
Plan Commission Minutes 13
November 16, 2010