Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES April 3, 2012 PRESENT: David Borsuk, Ed Bowen, Jeffrey Thoms, Thomas Fojtik, Steve Cummings, Kathleen Propp, Donna Lohry, Karl Nollenberger EXCUSED: John Hinz, Dennis McHugh, Robert Vajgrt STAFF: Darryn Burich, Director of Planning Services; David Buck, Principal Planner; Mark Rohloff, City Manager; David Patek, Director of Public Works; 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 March 20, 2012 were approved as presented. (Propp/Cummings) I. GRANT PRIVILEGE IN THE STREET AT PEARL AVENUE WEST OF OSCEOLA STREET University of Wisconsin Foundation, Inc. requests a privilege in the street permit to install underground conduit across Pearl Avenue west of Osceola Street. The conduit will house electric, communication lines and fiber optic cable. Mr. Buck presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the zoning classifications in said area. He stated that the Department of Public Works is requesting the University relocate a series of electrical conduit out of the Osceola Street right-of-way to complete an Osceola Street Utility project. The privilege in street is required to allow for the conduit to cross Pearl Avenue west of Osceola Street. He also reviewed the conditions recommended for this request which are standard for a privilege in street request. There was no discussion on this item. Motion by Thoms to grant the privilege in the street at Pearl Avenue west of Osceola Street as requested with the following conditions: 1.Placement of the underground conduit shall be coordinated with the Department of Public Works to prevent conflicts with existing underground utilities. 2.The underground conduit is installed in a manner that is approved by the Department of Public Works with no modification or changes in construction procedure without prior approval by the Department of Public Works. 3.If no longer needed, the underground conduit be properly abandoned and removed in accordance with City standards and under the direction of the Department of Public Works. 4.Any problem that may arise as a result of placement of the underground conduit be the responsibility of the petitioner/owner to correct in coordination with the Department of Public Works. 5.All appropriate permits be obtained prior to the start of placement of the underground conduit. 6.The underground conduit be modified or removed immediately upon request of the City. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 1 April 3, 2012 7.The petitioner/owner secures and submits 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/owner 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 the right-of-way permit within ten (10) days of notice. 9.The petitioner/owner execute a hold harmless agreement with the City. 10.The facility be part of and documented with Digger’s Hotline system. Seconded by Propp. Motion carried 7-0. II. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CONDITIONAL USE/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT TO ALLOW FOR PLACEMENT OF A COMMUNITY GARDEN ON VACANT PARCELS ON THE 600 BLOCK OF JEFFERSON STREET The applicant is requesting two actions within this petition: A.Conditional Use Permit Development for placement of a community garden on vacant parcels on the 600 block of Jefferson Street; and B.Planned Development approval for placement of a community garden on vacant parcels on the 600 block of Jefferson Street. Ms. Leslie presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in said area. She explained that these lots were a future redevelopment site owned by the City of Oshkosh Redevelopment Authority however there were no plans for redevelopment at this time. The community garden is being proposed as a temporary use of the site in the interim. She looked at other communities for reference and reviewed the site plan and conditions recommended for this request. Mr. Fojtik questioned how the garden use would be de-commissioned if redevelopment plans would surface for this area. Ms. Leslie responded that this approval was for one year only and would be potentially renewable on an annual basis but that would be at the discretion of the Oshkosh Redevelopment Authority. Mr. Thoms inquired who would be responsible for maintenance of the parcels such as mowing and trimming. Ms. Leslie replied that the University students that were applicants for this request would be responsible for the upkeep on the site as the RDA did not organize this effort. It will save the RDA money by not having to pay a contractor to maintain the properties and the community garden was a neighborhood association project. The users would also be responsible for weeding and maintenance of the garden area. Mr. Thoms then questioned who the users would be of the garden project and if parking was going to be an issue with residents on Jefferson Street. Ms. Leslie responded that the Near East Neighborhood and Middle Village Neighborhood citizens would be participating users of the site. She further stated that parking should not be an issue as on- __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 2 April 3, 2012 street parking is allowed on one side of Jefferson Street and some of the users could walk to the site from their homes. Ms. Lohry voiced her concerns with vandalism issues. Ms. Leslie indicated that fencing would be installed in a few locations only as it would be cost prohibitive to fence the entire area. Mr. Thoms inquired if the City would have any liability issues with matters such as vandalism as they are the owners of the property. Ms. Leslie responded that the Oshkosh Redevelopment Authority will address the liability issues in their proceedings as it still requires approval from their board before it can proceed. A brochure will be sent out detailing the information to citizens participating in the project. Mr. Nollenberger arrived at 4:15 pm. Amber McCord, 332 Hudson Avenue, one of the petitioners for the project, stated she was present for any questions. Ms. Lohry inquired if she had previous experience with community gardens in the past. Ms. McCord responded she did not and added that a neighbor to the north of the site stated they would help watch the site to prevent vandalism. Motion by Lohry to approve the conditional use permit/planned development to allow for placement of a community garden on vacant parcels on the 600 block of Jefferson Street as requested with the following conditions: 1.Community garden approval is contingent upon City of Oshkosh Redevelopment Authority approval and will be required on a yearly basis. 2.Applicant is responsible for maintenance of the subject site including mowing, trimming, weeding and keeping the site as orderly as possible. 3.Applicant to provide an area away from mowed areas for rocks and stones. 4.Any changes to the garden plan must be approved through the Planning Services Division. 5.If a compost area is to be provided, it shall be placed in such a way as to be out of sight as much as possible and be enclosed to prevent rodents. Final design/placement to be approved by the Planning Services Division. 6.No permanent or temporary structures are permitted on site with the exception of fencing and composting structures. 7.Applicants will be required to develop rules and procedures for garden users. Rules will have final approval by the Planning Services Division. Rules and regulations must include, but are not limited to, the following: a. Community garden is to be used for recreational gardening and for personal or family use. Only off-site commercial sales are allowed. b.Participants may garden during daylight hours only. Participants may garden any day of the week. c.Gardeners are to supply their own tools, water cans, etc. and these items are not to be left on site. d.Pets are not allowed in the garden area, except for service animals. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 3 April 3, 2012 e.Unsupervised children are not allowed in the garden area. f.Smoking, alcohol, profanity, yelling, and loud music are prohibited. g.Gardeners are expected to keep the garden free of weeds. h.Small animals may be trapped but not poisoned. i.Any debris and trash, other than compost materials, will be removed from the site. j.Gardeners are responsible for end-of-season clean up and to leave soil as they found it at the beginning of the growing season. Gardeners will remove all non- plant material, including weed-block fabric, plastic pots, wire tomato cages, stakes, tools, etc. at the end of the season. k.Parking is not permitted on site. Seconded by Cummings. Motion carried 8-0. III. REMOVAL OF OFFICIALLY MAPPED RIGHT-OF-WAY “GENEVA STREET” This action is requesting the removal of an officially mapped segment of land designated as future right-of-way starting at the northern terminus of Geneva Street running north and terminating at its intersection with West Packer Avenue. 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 also reviewed a site plan displaying the area to be removed from the official map. He explained that the area was officially mapped in 2003 to provide development opportunities for the landowners in the area; however the Department of Public Works is requesting to acquire several of the properties for detention purposes the official mapped roadway bisects necessitating the removal of the official mapping at this time. He also reviewed the project area map for the Libbey & Nicolet Avenue watersheds. Mr. Bowen inquired what parcels would be acquired and why the City was vacating the entire roadway when the area to the north did not appear to be involved with the acquisition. Mr. Buck replied that the official mapping actually hinders develop of the property to the north of the area to be acquired as it bisects the parcel. Motion by Borsuk to approve the removal of officially mapped right-of-way “Geneva Street”. Seconded by Bowen. Motion carried 8-0. IV. LAND ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2440/2520/2562 JACKSON STREET AND 2445 NORTH MAIN STREET The City of Oshkosh Department of Public Works is requesting approval to acquire approximately 8.72 acres of land from multiple property owners for use as part of a regional storm water detention facility to service the Libbey Avenue and Nicolet Court Watersheds. Mr. Buck presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the area proposed to be acquired which includes three parcels and the area to be removed from the official map for the extension of Geneva Street. He again reviewed the Libbey & Nicolet Avenue watershed map and explained that the Common Council had selected this location over other sites last fall. An open flood channel will be developed on the property to the south and a detention basin is planned for construction on the property to the north. The storm water facilities are proposed to remove both __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 4 April 3, 2012 sediment and reduce flooding issues in the area and property owners were notified of the City’s intention to acquire the land. Ms. Propp questioned if the Town of Oshkosh properties could be acquired without issues and what the storm water facilities would look like once complete. Steve Gohde, Assistant Director of Public Works, indicated that the City can acquire property outside of City limits however he did not have renderings of what the detention area would look like upon completion as the site has not yet been designed. Natural plantings would surround the basin and an open channel would connect to the wet basin to the north. Mr. Thoms questioned if when the detention basin would fill up if it would back flow into the channel. Mr. Gohde responded that it would depend on the intensity of the rainfall but the water would collect in either the basin or the channel similar to a previously constructed site on Harrison Street. He further stated that a pipe system is installed to the east of the site. Mr. Thoms then questioned if there was sufficient right-of-way access to remove sediment from the detention basin. Mr. Gohde responded affirmatively. Ms. Lohry stated that the property appeared to be a wooded area now and questioned why the City did not consider purchasing the land across the street from the site rather than destroy the mature trees. Mr. Gohde indicated that there were trees on the land proposed to be acquired however the site across the street had issues with wetland areas that could not be disturbed. Ms. Lohry then inquired how the area would be enhanced aesthetically. Mr. Gohde replied that there would be a wild flower seed mixture planted in the area with some landscaping being installed around the detention basin. Mr. Bowen inquired if the property would be annexed into the City as part of the process. Mr. Burich responded that long term plans would be to annex the area at some point. Mr. Thoms questioned if there were legal conflicts with the Town and City if the area is not annexed at this time. Mr. Burich responded that the area would be under County’s jurisdiction for zoning however the properties would have to be reviewed to prevent creating issues with Town islands left within City surrounded properties. Ms. Lohry inquired what other sites were considered for the detention facilities. Mr. Gohde indicated that there was another site north of Packer Avenue and west of Main Street that was considered however this site involved additional costs to the City. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 5 April 3, 2012 Ann Knaus, 2353 North Main Street, stated that the channel to be developed sounded like a giant ditch and questioned the exact location of it in proximity to their lot lines. Mr. Buck replied that the design was not completed at this time as the land acquisition is the first step in the process. Plans for its construction would not be designed until the proposed land acquisition has been approved. Ms. Knaus then questioned when the detention facilities would be constructed. Mr. Gohde responded that the detention facilities would not be constructed right on the property line as the City needs room to maintain it and the construction phase is not anticipated to be until 2014 or 2015. Randy Henn, 216 Bacon Street, inquired how deep the ditch was proposed to be and if it would be fenced. Mr. Buck reiterated that the design plans had not yet been developed but typically detention facilities are not fenced in. Mr. Burich added that a neighborhood meeting could be held at a later date to discuss details of the construction once plans are designed. Mr. Henn commented that he felt the detention facilities should be reconsidered and another location could be found for it. Linda Mingus, representing the owners of 2520 and 2562 Jackson Street, questioned why the land acquisition proposal was not flush with the property lines of 2504 Jackson Street. David Patek, Director of Public Works, responded that the City was looking to acquire the land that was for sale and that is the layout of the parcels that Schwab Realty has listed. He further stated that there was a small piece of land owned by the Town of Oshkosh on the parcel to the south of these properties and the land for sale was aligned with this parcel. He also commented that the City would require an easement on the property to the north for access to the detention basin. Ms. Knaus questioned if the detention basin would have a spillway area and what the hours of construction would be. Mr. Patek replied that the detention basin would have an overflow onto Main Street and the hours of operation for the contractors are usually from 7:00 am until 7:00 pm. He also gave further explanation of the silt and water storage in the detention basin and commented that the basin on the Fair Acres site was similar to what would be constructed in this area. Ms. Knaus stated that she was concerned with no fencing being installed around the basin. Mr. Patek explained the reasons that the City does not fence around these types of facilities and commented that it is no different than the areas in the City by the lake and river where open water is present. He further described the safety shelves and plantings around the detention basin that deter people from attempting to enter the water. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 6 April 3, 2012 Mr. Henn commented that there was an underground sewer system there now and voiced his concerns on how the detention facilities would affect property values. Mr. Patek responded that as the storm water facilities would control flooding issues, it should be an improvement to the neighborhood. He further commented that there is storm sewer installed in the area however it cannot handle the amount of water in the area as it does not have sufficient capacity. Roseann Boushele, 214 Bacon Street, asked for clarification of what the area will look like once the detention facilities are complete. Mr. Patek reiterated that the design has not yet been completed but the area would be planted with prairie plants such as grasses and flowers. Ms. Knaus questioned if the other property for sale across the street had wetlands on it that prevented it from being developed, why the City did not choose it build the basin there. Mr. Burich responded that there was a portion of the site that could be developed as long as the wetland portion was not disturbed. Motion by Borsuk to approve the land acquisition of property located at 2440/2520/2562 Jackson Street and 2445 North Main Street. Seconded by Nollenberger. Motion carried 8-0. V. CENTRAL GARAGE LOCATION RECOMMENDATION The Department of Public Works is requesting a recommendation regarding the location of the Central Garage relative to the two locations that it has previously presented to the Plan Commission; Witzel Avenue or Fernau Avenue. Mr. Burich presented the item and stated that a workshop and neighborhood meeting had been held regarding this matter and summarized the two sites being considered for the Central Garage. He reviewed the land use and zoning classifications in the Witzel Avenue location and stated that the use was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He further stated that the City would have to acquire additional properties in the area and reviewed the conceptual site plan for the Witzel Avenue site. He also reviewed the same aspects for the Fernau Avenue site which is surrounded by future industrial lands. He commented that the Department of Public Works is recommending the re-use of the current site. Mr. Patek distributed copies of a summary of site ranking scores compiled from surveys completed by Plan Commission members, Common Council members and City staff. He discussed the workshop held on the matter and noted that both the Common Council and staff had ranked the Witzel Avenue site higher than the site on Fernau Avenue although the rankings were very close. He also distributed and reviewed maps of designated truck routes using both sites which demonstrated that the Fernau Avenue site was not as centrally located. He also distributed copies of a time and distance study for truck deployment from both sites for snow plowing purposes which also demonstrated the extra time and mileage for the Fernau site as compared to the Witzel site. He discussed the neighborhood meeting held regarding the matter and stated that the property owners near the Witzel Avenue site held a consensus that the Central Garage should remain in the current location. They felt it allowed for more efficient use. Mr. Patek also discussed the CNG gas production from the Wastewater Treatment Plant and the biodigester which could potentially be used for fueling the City’s fleet when new trucks __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 7 April 3, 2012 are purchased utilizing this fuel source. He also discussed the environmental impacts on the Witzel Avenue site due to the contamination issues which will have to be dealt with prior to redevelopment of the area and would be costly to remediate. Architectural plans have not yet been developed and will be designed once a location is selected. The City will work with the DNR (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources) on solutions to deal with the environmental issues and would minimize the costs as much as possible. It would be less costly for the municipality to redevelop the site than any private entities. Mr. Borsuk questioned what the life expectancy of the building would be and how many other sites were considered. Mr. Patek indicated that the life expectancy of the structure would be 50+ years and that the City did not look into any other sites other than the two presented for consideration today. These sites were selected as the property was already owned by the City and the Fernau site would have a buffer around the land fill by constructing the Central Garage in this area. Bulk storage is already utilized by the City at the Fernau site and combining the sites would be more efficient. Mr. Borsuk commented that at the neighborhood meeting the possibility of the Wastewater Treatment Plant future expansion could impact the Transit facilities. Mr. Patek responded that the City needs to be cautious about what happens to property in this area as a buffer is necessary around the Treatment Plant as DNR regulations may change in the future and additional space may be required to address the City’s growth or changes in technology. He also discussed the discharge of the water from the Treatment Plant into the river. Mr. Thoms asked to clarify that the City would be combining all five municipal uses onto one site. Mr. Patek indicated that four uses would be combined on this site as the bulk storage would remain on Fernau Avenue. This will make operations much more efficient for the city. Mr. Thoms questioned if the city expands it could require additional space for vehicles on the site. Mr. Patek responded that the equipment purchased is more efficient than in prior years and he did not anticipate additional space being necessary for vehicle storage. Mr. Thoms than questioned if the Witzel Avenue site could satisfy water detention use if not utilized for the Central Garage and if the environmental issues were a concern. Mr. Patek replied that contaminated land is not recommended for use for detention basins and the DNR will require the issues to be addressed. He also stated that the site is not located in an area conducive for storm water management. Ms. Lohry inquired if the growth pattern of the city was anticipated to be to the north. Mr. Patek responded that the City’s current growth pattern was to the west and to the south. Mr. Thoms commented that considering this, why did the City not look at locations to the west. Mr. Cummings stated that the existing location will cost millions to remediate the land and the amount the City could sell it for was questionable. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 8 April 3, 2012 Mr. Patek commented that it would be another redevelopment area like Marion Road and would have to wait for development opportunities to utilize the site. Mr. Borsuk felt that it did not make sense to utilize the Witzel Avenue site for the Central Garage if the bulk storage was to remain on the Fernau site. Mr. Patek further explained the city’s growth to the west and south and the efficiency of utilizing a central location for operations that did not require additional travel time and fuel costs. Ms. Propp commented on the costs of the environmental cleanup of the Witzel Avenue site and stated that she felt there was less need there for private redevelopment. She questioned if the City would need to purchase sites on Third Avenue to possess enough area for the Central Garage operations. Mr. Patek responded affirmatively and stated that the relocation and acquisition process would begin if the Witzel Avenue site was approved. Mr. Borsuk questioned if any dispatch modeling had been completed. Mr. Patek explained that the maps distributed support how a central location worked best for the entire city. Mr. Bowen inquired if trucks will still have to travel to the Fernau Avenue site for bulk storage or other purposes. Mr. Patek replied that the operations at the Fernau site were seasonal and depending on projects performed, trucks would not be traveling to this site on a daily basis. Ms. Lohry commented that garbage truck would be going to the Fernau Avenue site every day. Mr. Patek stated that the garbage trucks travel to the landfill on County Y after pickups not to the Fernau Avenue site. Mark Rohloff, City Manager, added that for refuse collection it is not as much of an issue but for the rest of the City’s operations, they are rarely going to the north side of town. Mr. Cummings questioned what was in the bulk storage area out by the Fernau Avenue site. Mr. Patek responded that concrete crushing was performed at the site as well as storage of fill removed from a site that is eventually used at another location. These types of operations would have a bad impact on neighboring properties within the city. Mr. Borsuk commented that the City could have looked at other sites other than Witzel Avenue and Fernau Avenue and questioned why the emphasis was being placed on the redevelopment site on Witzel. Mr. Rohloff replied that redevelopment opportunities were considered as the city currently has an overage of areas available for redevelopment now such as properties on South Main Street, Oregon Street and Marion Road as well as other areas. Commercial use for the Witzel site would devaluate __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 9 April 3, 2012 other city owned redevelopment sites whereas the Fernau Avenue site has current potential for private development. Industrial property will be in high demand in the future. Mr. Cummings stated that the Witzel Avenue site is centrally located and he felt that most commercial uses want to be located near the Highway 41 corridor. Mr. Thoms discussed developable land and he felt that any property located near the river is more desirable. He voiced his concern with the Central Garage being located in this area and the environmental issues which he felt the City was obligated to address. Mr. Rohloff stated that the numbers are the guide and he wants to make the best decision possible for the City. The property on Witzel is currently an unsightly area as is and it can be compatible with the neighboring properties if developed appropriately. He further commented that municipalities have more latitude with DNR regulations than private developers so the City could do a more adequate job of remediating the site properly. Mr. Thoms commented that aesthetics need to be addressed to fit into the neighborhood. Mr. Rohloff stated that it may add some costs to make the site aesthetically pleasing but it was possible. Motion by Lohry to recommend the Witzel Avenue site for the Central Garage location. Seconded by Nollenberger. Mr. Borsuk stated that he would not support the request as he does not feel long term plans went into this area. He was disappointed that the City only considered these two sites for this use. Mr. Thoms commented that he would also not support this request as he did not feel that it was the highest and best use of the land and there were other alternatives available. He does not want to relocate people from their property if it is not necessary. Ms. Propp stated that she would support this request as she felt it was a good planning process and would be a well designed and planned Central Garage when complete. She further stated that she did not think the property would be easily marketed for sale to a private entity. Mr. Bowen commented that a distinction needed to be made between the highest and best use and he did not feel that the area was that desirable for development for private use. The plow routes are more efficient at the Witzel Avenue site and he felt it was a well thought out plan. Motion carried 6-2. (Ayes-Bowen/Fojtik/Cummings/Propp/Lohry/Nollenberger. Nays- Borsuk/Thoms.) VI. APPROVE THE CITY OF OSHKOSH SUSTAINABILITY PLAN The applicant requests the Plan Commission provide a recommendation of approval for the City of Oshkosh Sustainability Plan to the Common Council. Ms. Leslie presented the item and stated that it has been reviewed by many boards and commissions to date and would be presented to the Common Council in May. Comments from other board/commission members were included in the packet material and the plan was meant to be a __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 10 April 3, 2012 guidance document for sustainable efforts. The intent is to have all City efforts consider sustainable plans and practices. Mr. Borsuk questioned if the Sustainability Plan was to be a stand alone document. Ms. Leslie responded that it was intended to be incorporated by reference into the Comprehensive Plan similar to the recently approved bike/pedestrian plan. Mr. Borsuk then questioned what the impact on the Comprehensive Plan would be. He wanted to clarify if it was suggestible or a document that had to be followed. Ms. Leslie replied that it would be a reference guide only and should be considered when looking at development projects. She further stated that the City should lead by example and incorporate sustainable measures in future projects. Mr. Fojtik commented that the document uses a lot of assumptions and is not based on sound science. He voiced his concerns that it could result in anti-growth for development opportunities. Ms. Leslie commented that approving the Sustainability Plan is just the first step in the process. The next step is implementation of items contained within the plan which would have to go to the Common Council for approval. Mr. Cummings voiced his concern with the fact that there are no dollars within the budget to cover the costs of this plan’s implementation. Mr. Thoms stated that it was referenced as a guidance document however it was brought up later that portions of it would be implemented. Ms. Leslie commented that there was an Action Plan for the Sustainability Board which contained goals of items to complete however it was not a regulatory document. Mr. Cummings stated that he would want to see the costs of implementation before approving it. Ms. Leslie indicated that they would have to develop what activities would have to be researched and much of the costs are staff time to direct initiatives of the board. Mr. Burich stated that the Sustainability Plan in itself needs to be adopted first and implementation can be considered after the plan’s adoption. The plan mainly addresses environmental topics and sustainable practices for the future of our community. Mr. Borsuk commented that some items are spot on however other aspects of it are a bit alterative. Economic development is not addressed which he feels is relevant. He felt it could be adopted as a stand alone document and not be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Lohry stated that she felt if it could help with driveways and flooding in the city, she would support it. She believed in creating less impervious surfaces if possible. Ms. Propp felt it had some good concepts but should be used as a guidance tool only. She felt it was a good start and the plan should be adopted. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 11 April 3, 2012 Mr. Thoms commented that he did not feel it should be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Burich stated that the Plan Commission would have to amend the Comprehensive Plan to incorporate it which may not be feasible in its current state given the present discussion. Mr. Thoms stated that he would support adopting the Sustainability Plan as a stand alone document for guidance purposes only. Mr. Burich reiterated that the action of the Plan Commission was just adopting the Sustainability Plan as an independent document and not an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Motion by Thoms to approve the City of Oshkosh Sustainability Plan. Seconded by Propp. Motion carried 7-1. (Ayes-Borsuk/Bowen/Thoms/Cummings/Propp/ Lohry/Nollenberger. Nays-Fojtik.) PLANNING DIRECTOR’S REPORT Mr. Burich stated that there were no items to discuss at this time. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 6:10 pm. (Thoms/Propp) Respectfully submitted, Darryn Burich Director of Planning Services __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 12 April 3, 2012