Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES September 18, 2012 PRESENT: David Borsuk, Ed Bowen, Jeffrey Thoms, Thomas Fojtik, John Hinz, Steve Cummings, Kathleen Propp, Robert Vajgrt, Karl Nollenberger EXCUSED: Donna Lohry STAFF: Darryn Burich, Director of Planning Services; David Buck, Principal Planner; Jeffrey Nau, Associate Planner; 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 September 4, 2012 were approved as presented. (Vajgrt/Hinz) I. ACCEPT EASEMENTS SOUTH OF ROBIN AVENUE ALONG SAWYER CREEK FROM N. WESTFIELD STREET TO N. KOELLER STREET The City of Oshkosh Department of Public Works is requesting the City to accept three easements in relation to a dredging project and long-term maintenance of Sawyer Creek from N. Koeller Street to N. Westfield Street. Mr. Nau presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in said area. He explained that the easement request is in conjunction with a dredging project conducted by the City to remove accumulated sediment and debris to increase the ability of Sawyer Creek to convey runoff. He reviewed maps of each of the three easement requests and stated that these easements were identified in the Sawyer Creek Storm Water Management Plan and included in the 2012 Capital Improvement Program. The Department of Public Works and City Attorney will work with the property owners to have the appropriate easement documents signed and recorded at the Winnebago County Register of Deeds. Ms. Propp questioned if these easements would be permanent. Mr. Nau responded affirmatively. Mr. Thoms inquired if the City would be responsible to maintain these areas after the easements are approved rather than the property owners. Mr. Nau again responded affirmatively. Mr. Hinz commented that alleviating the flooding issues in the community was one thing that the citizens were strongly supporting. Motion by Nollenberger to approve the acceptance of easements south of Robin Avenue along Sawyer Creek from N. Westfield Street to N. Koeller Street. Seconded by Vajgrt. Motion carried 9-0. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 1 September 18, 2012 II. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST TO PERMIT A CHURCH WITH ACCESSORY PARKING AT 440 WEST SOUTH PARK AVENUE This is a request for a conditional use permit (CUP) for re-establishment of a worship center/church and accessory parking at 440 West South Park Avenue. Mr. Buck presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the zoning and land use in said area. He explained the past history of the site and stated that this request was to re-establish the original use of a church with accessory parking lots and no site improvements were proposed at this time. He reviewed the services proposed to be held at the facility and reviewed the one condition recommended for the request which was to combine the three separate parcels into one parcel for the entire development. Mr. Thoms questioned if any renovations to the site would have to come through the Plan Commission for approval. He commented that the previous proposal included replacing the stained glass windows however they were to be retained for re-use on the site. Mr. Buck replied that the previous proposal was to change the use from a church to condominiums which initiated the condition regarding retaining the stained glass windows from the original church structure. This request was to retain the original use of the church therefore interior modifications may be necessary however they do not require approval by the Plan Commission. Mr. Thoms then questioned if the same stipulation would apply for the stained glass windows. Mr. Buck responded that since this proposal is to revert back to its original use, the only stipulation for the conditional use permit is that the use needs to be compatible with the surrounding uses. He added that the condition could be added to retain the stained glass windows if the Commission felt it was necessary. Mr. Vajgrt commented that when the diocese was in the process of selling the property, retaining the stained glass windows was a stipulation of the diocese in the sale of the property. Mr. Buck commented that the conversion of the church to condominiums required special egress windows to obtain an occupancy permit for residential use. Mr. Cummings commented that there were a lot of vacant churches in the community and questioned if the property remained tax exempt even if the church was no longer in operation. Mr. Burich replied that he would have to inquire with the Assessor’s office for a response to that question. Mr. Cummings stated that saying it’s a church and using it as one is two different things. Mr. Vajgrt commented that once a church is declared no longer operational, it goes back on the tax roll and that is why the diocese sells off properties they are no longer using. Mr. Cummings questioned at what point the church is required to pay property taxes. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 2 September 18, 2012 Mr. Burich responded that it was a broader question and he would need to consult with the City Attorney and Assessor’s office to obtain a definitive answer. Loren Rangeloff, 3020 Oregon Street, petitioner for the request, stated he was present to answer any questions regarding the request. Mr. Borsuk inquired if he had any issues with the condition recommended for the request. Mr. Rangeloff responded that he had no problems with the condition recommended to combine the parcels and he did not intend to remove the stained glass windows from the church. Mr. Cummings questioned when the church would become operational. Mr. Rangeloff indicated that they were anticipating use of the church to be in early October as their congregation has to move from its current location. Motion by Vajgrt to approve the conditional use permit to allow a church with accessory parking at 440 W. South Park Avenue with the following condition: 1.The three separate parcels are to be combined to one parcel for the entire development. Seconded by Nollenberger. Motion carried 9-0. IIIA: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PUBLIC UTILITY STRUCTURE (DRY STORM DRAINAGE DETENTION BASIN) LOCATED NORTH OF STATE HIGHWAY 91 AT JAMES ROAD IIIB: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR GRADING AND FILLING IN A SHORELAND AREA IIIC: ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF STATE HIGHWAY 91 AT JAMES ROAD The City of Oshkosh Department of Public Works is requesting actions related to construction of the James Road regional detention basin. One of the actions (Item A) is a conditional use permit for the basin itself as a public utility structure. One of the actions (Item B) is a conditional use permit for grading and filling in a shoreland area (Sawyer Creek) necessitated by the city’s required administration of the County’s Shoreland Ordinance. And the last item (Item C) is a land acquisition (temporary easement or actual acquisition) to permit construction traffic access for construction of the detention basin. Mr. Nau presented the item and stated that he would be reviewing all three requests at one time as they are all related. He reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in said area. He explained that the site consists of 45 acres of land which attached to the City on August 28, 2012 and the remaining 10 acres of the site for the basin was located in the Town of Omro. The area within the Town would be reviewed by Winnebago County and the Town of Omro and the area the Plan Commission was reviewing was the 45 acres which attached to the City. He reviewed a map of the Shoreland Zoning District area as well as a map of the Sawyer Creek Watershed. He reviewed a site plan of the proposed basin which would be a dry detention basin and will reduce the flooding impact in a number of areas in the community and was part of a series of __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 3 September 18, 2012 projects to address this issue. He also reviewed the conditions recommended for Item IIIA. He explained the Shoreland Zoning District’s enforcement and stated that Winnebago County has already reviewed the request and does not have concerns with the project but recommended five conditions which are the same conditions that are recommended for Item IIIB. He reviewed said conditions. He also displayed the area for the temporary easements and explained that the reason for the easement request is for removal of fill from the site to be used for the site of the Southwest Industrial Park expansion. The Department of Public Works felt there was a safety issue with trucks utilizing STH 91 for the transfer of the fill from the basin site to the City’s Industrial Park site and the land would be restored and the easements released once construction of the basin is complete. Mr. Burich noted that there was an error in the staff report referring to 30-foot wide easements when it should have been 40-foot easements. Mr. Thoms questioned how the area would be accessed for maintenance of the basin. Steve Gohde, Assistant Director of Public Works, stated that an easement has already been acquired for access directly to STH 91 for maintenance purposes. Wes Radloff, 2061 James Road, stated that the City had already taken 55 acres from him for the construction of the detention basin and that there was an ethanol plant down the road and there were trucks going by all the time on STH 91. He further stated that this was productive land that they used for farming and that the City had no regard for their property. Initially the City was talking about a 20 foot strip for an easement which has now turned into a 40 foot strip and he feels there is more to it than that. He also commented that they have not received any compensation for these easement requests. Mr. Burich indicated that the compensation questions are outside of what is being discussed and is not in the Plan Commission’s scope of addressing. Mr. Radloff questioned if the Commission felt this was fair and that he thought the City was putting the cart before the horse in this situation. Mr. Thoms asked for clarification of the easement size and if it has been decided where the easement would be located. David Patek, Director of Public Works, responded that the easement would be 40 feet wide for 140 linear feet and that they have had a meeting with the owners and their attorneys and approval was necessary by the Plan Commission and Common Council at this point. The property owners had some proposals to review the location of the easement and the relocation of the fill from the basin site was decided upon later. If an agreement is not reached with the property owners on the matter, the State statutes process for acquisition would be pursued. Ms. Propp questioned if the temporary easement may be relocated after meeting again with the property owners. Mr. Patek replied the easement was following the farm line through the property other than one property where it would go through the farm field. They were still reviewing this issue. Mr. Cummings left at 4:37 pm. Mr. Thoms inquired when the easements would begin. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 4 September 18, 2012 Mr. Patek indicated that the timing of the project was being discussed and it may be done during the winter if the City can come to an agreement with the property owners. He further explained the municipal process of acquisition and agreements. Mr. Thoms questioned if the City went through the condemnation process to acquire these easements if they would still be temporary. Mr. Patek responded that they would still be temporary and the land would revert back to the property owner after construction was completed. Motion by Hinz to vote on Item IIIA and IIIB separately from Item IIIC. Seconded by Thoms. Mr. Bowen asked to clarify that the Department of Public Works needs approval of the acquisition item in order to proceed with the compensation discussions with the property owner. Mr. Patek explained the municipal process of obtaining the easement and stated that when an agreement is reached, an appraisal would be completed to establish value. Mr. Bowen then questioned if this easement is approved at this location, how it would be handled if the easement is decided to be relocated. Mr. Patek responded that the request would be brought back to the Plan Commission and Common Council if the easement would be relocated. Mr. Bowen also questioned if staff needed to have approval of the request to proceed with discussion for acquisition. Mr. Patek confirmed that approval of the acquisition was necessary for the City to proceed with negotiations. Mr. Bowen commented that he was dissatisfied with the process as it stands and if this was not necessary, he would like to see it handled differently. Mr. Thoms stated that from what was said, it appeared that some discussion had occurred with the property owners however he would rather see an agreement in place first prior to voting on the request. Mr. Burich commented that the process allows the City to follow through with the process of condemnation if an agreement cannot be reached and the property owner is not in agreement with the City at this time. He further stated that this is the proposed location for the easement and if Commission members do not feel it is acceptable, they should vote to deny the request. The final layout of the easement area can come back for reconsideration if relocated however the property owner has not offered an alternative layout for the easement. Mr. Borsuk commented that you must have an understanding of the process and how it is initiated and facilitate the process as it is the best way for the City to be efficient. Mr. Hinz stated that if the situation proceeds to the condemnation process to acquire the easement, he would want to see that the City attempted to work with the property owners on the matter. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 5 September 18, 2012 Motion carried 7-1. Ayes-Bowen/Thoms/Fojtik/Hinz/Propp/Vajgrt/Nollenberger. Nays- Borsuk. Motion by Propp to approve the conditional use permit for a public utility structure (dry storm drainage detention basin) located north of STH 91 at James Road with the following condition: 1 – Landscape plan be submitted to and approved by the Department of Community Development. And to approve the conditional use permit for grading and filling in a shoreland area with the following conditions: 1 – Owner (City of Oshkosh) shall employ best management practices for erosion control. 2 – Erosion control devices/measures shall be maintained until site is fully re-vegetated and stabilized. 3 – All natural drainage patterns shall be maintained to highest extent possible so as to prevent any adverse affects on adjoining properties. 4 – Erosion control devices/measures shall be repaired within 48 hours of failure or as soon as site conditions allow. 5 – All other permits from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and Army Corps of Engineers shall be obtained if applicable. Seconded by Vajgrt. Motion carried 8-0. Motion by Borsuk to approve the acquisition of property located north of STH 91 at James Road. Seconded by Propp. Mr. Thoms commented that he did not like the process of condemnation and the only alternative goes down the line proposed which may be the best laid out plan and there would be less impact on the farm if construction could be completed in winter. He would like to see the plans get worked out with the property owner first before voting to approve the request. Ms. Propp commented that this is the process to start discussion with the property owner and negotiations will continue after the acquisition for the easement is approved and hopefully they will come to an agreement. The City can come back if the easement area is decided to be relocated therefore she would support the request. Motion by Nollenberger to table the request until the area for the easement is agreed upon. Seconded by Thoms. Mr. Borsuk commented that he felt the request should be approved to enable the City to move the process along. Mr. Bowen stated that he felt the request should be forwarded to the Common Council and let them make the decision if the request should be approved at this point. Motion to table the request was denied 6-2. Ayes-Thoms/Nollenberger. Nays- Borsuk/Bowen/Fojtik/Hinz/Propp/Vajgrt. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 6 September 18, 2012 Mr. Hinz stated that negotiations are taking place and he would like to have the request come through for approval once an agreement for the area of the easement is reached. Mr. Patek further discussed the process and commented that the City has been giving the property owners as much information as possible and trying to educate them regarding the municipal process. The Plan Commission needs to decide what is to benefit the community as a whole in this situation and the property owners will be compensated for the temporary easement with the approval of the amount of compensation by the Common Council. Mr. Fojtik commented that there seems to be a lack of confidence in the process. Mr. Nollenberger stated that this should be further along in the process before bringing the request forward for approval. Motion to approve the request was denied 4-4. Ayes-Borsuk/Propp/Vajgrt/Nollenberger. Nays-Bowen/Thoms/Fojtik/Hinz. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 5:02 pm. (Thoms/Borsuk) Respectfully submitted, Darryn Burich Director of Planning Services __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 7 September 18, 2012