HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutesPLAN COMMISSION MINUTES
March 1, 2011
PRESENT: Ed Bowen, Jeffrey Thorns, John Hinz, Tony Palmeri, Dennis McHugh, Donna Lohry,
Robert Vajgrt, Karl Nollenberger
EXCUSED: David Borsuk, Thomas Fojtik, Kathleen Propp
STAFF: Darryn Burich, Director of Planning Services; David Buck, Principal Planner; Jeffrey
Nau, Associate Planner; Deborah Foland, Recording Secretary
In the absence of both the Chairperson and Vice - Chairperson, Ed Bowen was appointed to chair the
meeting pro tem.
Chairperson Bowen called the meeting to order at 4:00 pm. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared
present.
The minutes of February 1, 2011 were approved as presented. (Vajgrt/Nollenberger)
L A GENERAL ORDINANCE TO PERMIT PERMANENT TRACK RELOCATION
WITHIN CITY RIGHT- OF-WAY BY WISCONSIN CENTRAL LTD. (CANADIAN
NATIONAL)
Wisconsin Central LTD. is requesting a General Ordinance to allow the railroad company to
permanently relocate tracks and associated facilities within City right -of -way in the Broad Street right -
of -way in order to facilitate reconstruction of the 112 year old rail bridge over the Fox River.
Mr. Burich presented the item and explained that the reconstruction of the railroad bridge would
require adjustment to both the bridge and track alignment and reviewed the site and surrounding area.
He discussed the age of the bridge structure and the relocation of the proposed new bridge which
would be 40 feet to the east of the existing one. He reviewed the location of the proposed new bridge
and conceptual renderings of the bridge as well as the riverwalk plan for the south shore. He also
stated that the railroad was willing to work with the City on the future extension of Ninth Avenue to
connect with Pioneer Drive. He reviewed the site plans for the proposed bridge replacement and
commented that two fishing shanties would need to be removed due to this project and a bridge tender
facility would be constructed on or near the shore. He also reviewed the conditions recommended for
this request.
Mr. Hinz questioned if the trains would be increasing their speed through the city, would
improvements be made to the vehicle and pedestrian crossings.
Mr. Burich responded that the crossings were currently all gated and the railroad is not proposing to
improve any crossings.
Mr. McHugh inquired when the project would commence, how long it will take to complete, and if it
would create any anticipated problems particularly for the Pioneer Inn.
Mr. Burich replied that the project would begin later this year and should take 12 -18 months to
complete. He did not foresee any problems created by this project as Pioneer Drive may be briefly
Plan Commission Minutes
March 1, 2011
closed however both Ninth and Fourteenth Avenues would remain open during this time. He further
stated that the increased speeds have the potential to create noise issues or accidents which could
jeopardize the quiet zone status in the city. The railroad has indicated that train speeds would increase
from 25 mph to 40 mph due to the bridge replacement.
Ms. Lohry questioned how the original agreement was initiated between the City and the railroad.
Mr. Burich stated that he did not know how the previous approvals were established as that was over a
hundred years ago and that currently State Statutes govern railroad activities.
Mr. Palmeri inquired if the bridge tender would be a Canadian National employee, if the owner of the
private fishing shanty had been notified, if city utilities would have to be relocated, and if the
Department of Transportation has any involvement in this project.
Mr. Burich responded that the bridge tender would be a Canadian National employee, the railroad has
been dealing with working out an agreement with the owner of the shanty, the railroad would be
covering any expenses related to the relocation of utilities, and that the Department of Transportation is
not involved with this project and that the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, the Corps of
Engineers and other entities are part of this process.
Mr. Palmeri also questioned the comments about the existing bridge being eligible for listing on the
National Register of Historic Places.
Mr. Buck replied that since the bridge was eligible for listing, the Landmarks Commission reviewed
this project and made recommendations regarding salvaging certain pieces of the bridge for historic
purposes. He further discussed details of the historic issues.
Mr. Thorns inquired if the existing bridge would be removed, how the riverwalk would proceed
through this area, and if there were required aesthetic standards for the construction and maintenance
of the proposed replacement bridge.
Mr. Burich responded that the existing bridge would be removed as it has out lived it useful life, the
riverwalk would be constructed through this area at grade level, and he also reviewed the rendering of
the proposed bridge submitted by the railroad.
Mr. McHugh discussed the fishing dock created near Ohio Street from the remains of the railroad
bridge that was removed and questioned if this was being considered for this area.
Mr. Burich replied that City staff is currently discussing this issue.
Mike Matteucci, representing the Canadian National Railroad, stated that warning times will be the
same regardless of the speed of the trains and from their experience, slower moving trains induce
people to attempt to race to get ahead of it. Increasing the train's speed is safer as it discourages this
practice. He further stated that the project, if approved, would begin late this year and was anticipated
to be completed by 2013 with the Coast Guard and Corps of Engineers both involved in the process.
He did not have any documentation regarding how the relationship between the city and railroad
began, but it was initiated in either 1900 or 1901. The bridge tender facility to be constructed on shore
had been relocated unto a pylon off shore and the railroad had reached an agreement with the private
fishing shanty owner. He verified that any costs related to any relocation of city utilities would be at
Plan Commission Minutes
March 1, 2011
the expense of the railroad and the Coast Guard and Corps of Engineers determines the type of bridge
opening allowed for the project.
Mr. Burich questioned if there was any ability to retain a segment of the existing bridge to create a
fishing pier.
Mr. Matteucci responded that he did not believe that would be feasible as the foundations in the water
for the structure were 110 years old and may not be stable.
Mr. Thorns inquired what impact it would have on the railroad if the proposed bridge replacement was
not approved and if there were any alternative routes for the train to utilize.
Mr. Matteucci replied that if the existing bridge cannot be replaced, the train speeds will have to be
decreased. They have already decreased speeds from 40 mph to 25 mph however they may have to be
further decreased to accommodate the bridge structure if replacement is not approved. There is not an
alternative route for the train to utilize.
Mr. Hinz questioned if there would be less than six feet clearance from the proposed bridge to the
water as the current structure has adequate clearance to allow smaller boats to pass under the bridge
when it is in a closed position.
Mr. Matteucci responded that the clearance under the proposed bridge would be the same as it
currently exists.
Mr. Burich stated that the Plan Commission is reviewing this project from a land use standpoint and
this should not have a negative impact on the area.
Mr. Thorns inquired what the positive impact would be to keeping the bridge in this location.
Mr. Burich replied that industrial customers in the area utilize the rail service for their businesses and
the railroad could rebuild the existing bridge in its current location if a replacement bridge was not
approved.
Ms. Lohry discussed her love of trains and the history of trains in our country and the concept of
creating an underground tunnel for the train to pass through the city such as ones constructed in New
York City, Chicago, and Europe. If the train would tunnel underground through the entire length of
the city, it would be in everyone's best interest and she would not be supporting the bridge replacement
for this reason.
Mr. McHugh agreed and stated the administrative staff should have already looked into this matter.
Mr. Palmeri stated that he was uncomfortable with the fifth "whereas" statement in the proposed
ordinance that refers to the City believing that the new bridge will serve to enhance and improve the
public health, safety, convenience and general welfare of the citizens. He did not feel there was
enough information to support this claim particularly as safety concerns were detailed in the staff
report. He would first like to review Canadian National's safety record and further investigate if the
increased speeds of the trains would have any negative consequences.
Mr. Vajgrt questioned if the attached ordinance was the existing one or the proposed ordinance.
Plan Commission Minutes
March 1, 2011
Mr. Bowen stated that the attached document was the proposed ordinance.
Mr. McHugh commented that if the bridge replacement is approved, the new bridge could last another
hundred years and with today's technology advancing, there may be a way to move the train out of
town in the future. He felt it would be best to delay the approval of the bridge replacement at this time.
Mr. Thorns stated that he felt there were issues regarding safety such as derailments and other concerns
with the increased speeds of the trains however they are a viable mode of transportation. He
commented that we should take another look at questions raised today and delay action on this item
until after the workshop with the Common Council next week.
Mr. Matteucci commented that constructing a 6.9 mile tunnel through the city sounded cost prohibitive
and it was in the railroad's best interest to operate the safest rail service possible. The increased speeds
would be safer and the railroad believes that safety was more important than efficiency in their field.
Mr. Burich asked Mr. Matteucci to elaborate on how the bridge replacement would enhance and
improve public health.
Mr. Matteucci responded that increasing safety for the movement of the trains through the city would
improve public health. If the bridge was replaced as proposed, the trains could increase their speed
through the city which would decrease wait times at crossings which would benefit both citizens and
particularly emergency responders. The increased speed also reduces incidents due to attempting to
race the train and impedes crossings for a shorter period of time giving people less reason to attempt to
get in front of it.
Patrick Waldron, representing Canadian National Railroad, added that slowing down the train to cross
the bridge elevates the noise levels as the change in speed increases the engine noise. He further
commented that crossings are also delayed for a longer period of time as it takes the train a long time
to get back up to speed after slowing for the bridge crossing.
Mr. Hinz stated that safety should come first and the railroad is slowing down speeds to cross over the
bridge for safety reasons not because it is cost effective for them.
Ms. Lohry inquired how often the trains go through the city.
Mr. Waldron responded that 18 -24 trains pass through the city on a daily basis both during the day and
night and that the railroad has a long list of businesses in the Fox Valley that are serviced by them.
Ms. Lohry further discussed her concept of constructing a tunnel underneath the city for the trains.
Mr. Matteucci commented that the railroad services customers directly to the south of the bridge and
an underground tunnel would not allow service to this business.
Mr. Vajgrt stated that in all the years he worked for the Fire Department, he did not recall any
incidents where the availability of emergency responders crossing from the east to the west side of the
city was impeded by the train. He also commented that they never had a delay of emergency vehicles
due to this issue either.
Mr. Thorns commented that faster speeds through the city would help the issue.
Plan Commission Minutes
March 1, 2011
Motion by Vajgrt to approve the General Ordinance to permit permanent track relocation
within City right -of -way by Wisconsin Central LTD. with the following conditions:
1. The railroad work in cooperation with the City to permit the 9th Avenue right -of -way extension
with integrated river walk facilities.
2. Department of Public Works approve all plans for placement in right -of -way and be
responsible for all related relocations, alterations, or modifications.
Seconded by Thoms. Motion carried 5 -3. ( Ayes- Bowen/ Thoms /HinzlVajgrt/Nollenberger.
Nays- Palmeri/McHugh/Lohry.)
Mr. Nollenberger commented that the idea of creating a tunnel under the city was interesting; however
it probably was not financially viable.
Mr. Bowen stated that the creation of a fishing pier at this location was a good idea as well and these
concepts could be further discussed at the workshop next week.
Mr. Burich commented that it would be an open workshop if anyone would like to attend and it would
be held next Tuesday, at 5:00 pm prior to the Common Council meeting.
IL ZONE CHANGE FROM C -3 CENTRAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT TO R -2 TWO
FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED WEST OF BROAD
STREET, SOUTH OF WAUGOO AVENUE, EAST OF COURT STREET AND NORTH
OF OTTER STREET
This item is a requested zone change from C -3 Central Commercial District to R -2 Two Family
Residence District to remove the ability to develop multiple family or commercial uses in this area.
Mr. Buck presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the current land
uses in said area. He explained the financial issues that prompted the property owner in this block to
request the zone change and reviewed a breakdown of the current land uses. He further commented
that the zone change would make one multi - family property a nonconforming use and explained the
dimensional difficulties with this property even under its current zoning classification. He explained
that the C -3 zoning classification could allow detrimental uses that could have a negative impact on
this residential neighborhood and although the Comprehensive Plan recommends mixed uses for this
area, the C -3 classification allows more high intensity uses and the parcels are too small to
accommodate such uses as they currently exist.
Mr. Burich distributed a petition that was signed by property owners within this block requesting this
zone change. He commented that he has not heard any opposition to the zone change request and
reviewed an email from Shannon Wienandt supporting it. He further commented that the zoning
classification could be changed at a later time to commercial if circumstances require, however he
would like to preserve the existing residential area for now.
Mr. Thorns commented that the R -2 zoning classification does not support the Comprehensive Plan for
this area however he could see where it is a continuation of the single and two - family homes to the east
of this site and in this case it may be desirable to have these homes downtown.
Mr. Burich commented that the current zoning classification has been in effect since 1965.
Plan Commission Minutes
March 1, 2011
Mr. Buck added that quasi - commercial uses would still be allowed in this area through a home
occupation permit.
Mr. Palmeri questioned if law firms or other types of businesses would be permitted if this zone
change is approved.
Mr. Buck responded that they would not be permitted under the R -2 zoning classification.
Mr. Palmeri then questioned if the petitioner found this acceptable.
Mr. Burich replied affirmatively and stated that a neighborhood meeting was held to explain the
impacts of the zone change to the property owners in the block and adjacent to it.
Mr. Palmeri stated that if one individual was requesting the zone change, could the city change that
property owner's classification only.
Mr. Buck responded that it would be considered spot zoning to change only one property on this block
which is considered poor planning practice.
Mr. Palmeri commented that the change to R -2 zoning does not encourage mixed use developments
and he did not see the reason to prevent other opportunities when only one person was requesting the
change.
Mr. Thorns stated that there may be only one person requesting the zone change however seven other
property owners signed the petition agreeing to the request. He felt from a planning standpoint, it
made sense and was more productive than to deal with each request separately.
Ms. Lohry commented that the resale values of the homes would be higher with an R -2 zoning
classification rather than a C -3.
Mr. Burich stated that the zone change to R -2 would remove the uncertainty of what may be developed
next door, and in the future, the entire block could be rezoned to a commercial classification if
necessary to provide for a mixed -use development.
Mr. Hinz commented that he felt we should work with the people that live in the area currently and that
this was discussed at the workshop and the change to R -2 seemed to be the best idea.
Mr. Burich stated that it would stabilize the neighborhood.
Michelle Rosenberg, 402 Otter Avenue, stated that the land use map displayed depicted her home as a
two - family residence and it is a single family home and that she wanted her property rezoned as well.
She further commented that there are three homes for sale in the neighborhood now and there may be
issues with the sale of them if they are not rezoned as financing may not be obtainable. She liked the
older neighborhood they lived in and wished to preserve it.
Mr. Palmeri stated that he has seen a number of historic homes that were refurbished and used as a
business and did not want to prevent this opportunity.
Ms. Rosenberg commented that she felt the inclusion of businesses in the neighborhood would
decrease property values of the residential properties.
Plan Commission Minutes
March 1, 2011
Jody Cleveland, 402 Otter Avenue, stated that if businesses were to move into one of these homes,
there was no parking area to accommodate its customers.
Mr. Palmeri commented that he suggested it as it was a strategy for redevelopment.
Mike Ruhl, 406 Otter Avenue, stated that he made the rezoning request after finding out about the
difficulties in refinancing his home due to its current zoning classification. He then looked at the
remainder of the block and felt that it was a huge sustainability issue for the neighborhood as the
change in classification would allow both refinancing and sales and he also was disturbed to discover
that the C -3 zoning classification also allowed light industrial uses.
Mr. Thorns stated that we need people like this to refurbish old homes and maintain them and he would
rather have people living in these homes than have them restored by businesses for commercial
purposes.
Mr. Palmeri agreed and stated that there are a lot of old empty homes in the city since many of them
are limited to use due to their residential zoning classification.
Mr. Thorns commented that this area seems to be a family neighborhood which would benefit from the
zone change to a residential classification.
Motion by Nollenberger to approve the zone change from C -3 Central Commercial District to
R -2 Two Family Residence District for properties located west of Broad Street, south of
Waugoo Avenue, east of Court Street and north of Otter Street.
Seconded by Vajgrt. Motion carried 8 -0.
III. NEW CAFE DRAFT ORDINANCE — CHAPTER 25 OF OSHKOSH MUNICIPAL
CODE
This item was withdrawn from the agenda by staff to present at a future meeting.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 5:25 pm. (Thoms /Vajgrt)
Respectfully submitted,
Darryn Burich
Director of Planning Services
Plan Commission Minutes
March 1, 2011