Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes__________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 1 September 16, 2014 PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES September 16, 2014 PRESENT: David Borsuk, Ed Bowen, Jeffrey Thoms, Thomas Fojtik, Steve Cummings, Kathleen Propp, Gary Gray, Donna Lohry, Robert Vajgrt EXCUSED: John Hinz, Karl Nollenberger STAFF: Darryn Burich, Director of Planning Services; David Buck, Principal Planner; Jeffrey Nau, Associate Planner; Benjamin Krumenauer, Assistant Planner; Allen Davis, Director of Community Development; Steve Gohde, Assistant Director of Public Works; David Patek, Director of Public Works; Jim Collins, Director of Transportation; 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 2, 2014 were approved as presented. (Vajgrt/Borsuk) I. GRANT PRIVATE UTILITY EASEMENT EAST OF 663 W. 3RD AVENUE Wisconsin Public Service, (WPS), is requesting a private utility easement located east of 663 W. 3rd Avenue. Mr. Krumenauer presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area. He explained that due to the lot improvements, WPS is replacing a guy wire and support pole and moving the pole from the rear of the lot to the front which would reduce the length of the overhead wires and reduce the area of the lot that is impacted by the easement. He further stated that the Department of Public Works has no issues with this request and, if approved, would work with the City Attorney and WPS to have the appropriate easement documents signed and recorded at the Winnebago County Register of Deeds. Mr. Borsuk questioned if the line crosses the street for the utilities and if any consideration was given to burying the line rather than relocating the support pole. Steve Gohde, Assistant Director of Public Works, responded that the line does cross the street to provide service to the building located there however to bury the line would require burying the entire section of the lines and the one single guy line is the only one involved in the easement request. He further stated that the single guy wire used to run to the rear of the parcel previously and would now only extend to the easement area at the front of the property. Motion by Vajgrt to approve granting a private utility easement east of 663 W. 3rd Avenue. Seconded by Propp. Motion carried 8-0. II. ACCEPT EASEMENTS FOR PLACEMENT AND ASSOCIATED MAINTENANCE AREA FOR A BUS SHELTER PROPOSED TO BE CONSTRUCTED AT 1900 JACKSON STREET The City of Oshkosh Transportation Department is requesting acceptance of two easements at the Pick ‘n Save/Fair Acres property located at 1900 Jackson Street. The first easement being requested is to __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 2 September 16, 2014 allow placement of a bus shelter adjacent to the Jackson Street right-of-way. The second easement request is to provide five feet of access surrounding the proposed shelter for maintenance purposes. Mr. Nau presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area and displayed where the location was of the previous bus shelter at this site which has since been removed. He explained that the property owner has agreed to place the proposed new bus shelter on Jackson Street and reviewed the site plan for the requested easements. As with the previous request, City staff will be working with the property owner to draft the appropriate documents to be signed and recorded at the Winnebago County Register of Deeds. Mr. Borsuk questioned what the car count was at the intersection of Jackson Street and Murdock Avenue. Jim Collins, Director of Transportation, replied that he did not have that information with him. Mr. Borsuk then inquired as to where the bus currently stops at this location. Mr. Collins responded that the area of the proposed bus shelter is where the bus currently stops. Mr. Borsuk stated that he was interested in determining the measurement from where the bus riders get on and off the bus in comparison to the location of the driveway for the business. Mr. Bowen arrived at 4:10 pm. Mr. Thoms questioned if there was public sidewalk in this location. Mr. Collins responded affirmatively. Mr. Thoms then questioned if there would be adequate room to accommodate bike parking in this same location as he felt the easement should be large enough to accommodate both the bus shelter and a bike rack. Mr. Collins responded that it would be up to the owner of Pick ‘N Save to allow a bike rack to be placed at this location. At this time they have agreed to an easement for the bus shelter and for a maintenance area around the proposed shelter. He further stated that normally the City does not need to obtain an easement from the property owner for a bus shelter as they are usually placed on the terrace however in this case, there is no terrace at this location therefore it is proposed to be located on the property owner’s land which requires their permission to do so. Mr. Vajgrt asked to clarify that there is a bus stop currently at this location. Mr. Collins confirmed this. Mr. Gray inquired why this request requires two easements. Mr. Collins responded that one easement was for the bus shelter itself and the second easement was to allow access to the shelter for maintenance purposes. Mr. Gray then inquired if there were funds in the Capital Improvements Program, (CIP), to cover the costs of building the bus shelter at this location. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 3 September 16, 2014 Mr. Collins responded that the funds for this shelter were not part of the CIP but would come from the Transportation Department’s 2014 budget. Mr. Gray also questioned why easement requests were brought before the Plan Commission for review. Mr. Burich responded that it was a statutory requirement. Ms. Lohry commented that the discussions regarding this proposed facility is due to the fact that the property owner does not want the bus shelter in their parking lot however she felt that this location was not where people would like to see it as they can no longer wait inside the building until the bus arrives. She felt that placing it on Jackson Street which is heavily traveled and not near the entrance to the store was not ideal. Mr. Collins stated that this has been collaboration between the City, the owners of Pick ‘N Save and Fair Acres and the management group and the consensus was that it was the safest and most convenient plan to service this location. He further stated that it is not safe to get the bus into the parking lot and this proposal was the best solution for the neighborhood and also the best alternative for both riders of the transit system and bus drivers. This shelter would offer an elevated platform for riders with mobility devices and all parties agree that this is the best alternative available. Mr. Nau stated that he referenced the traffic counts that were questioned previously and 18,600 vehicles per day access this area. Mr. Borsuk commented that he did not have a clear understanding of why the bus shelter was removed from the Fair Acres property as to if it was a scheduling or operation issue. Mr. Collins responded that it was changed for a number of reasons. For one, a new bus route system was implemented and there was inadequate room to maneuver in the parking lot which made it no longer feasible to enter the parking lot to the bus shelter. He further explained how the residential development on Main Street changed the bus route and that safety issues were the main concern with having the shelter located in the parking lot. Mr. Borsuk commented that this was the busiest intersection in the city and he felt that buses will be stopping too close to the driveway entrance on a very busy street which did not appear to be safe. Mr. Collins stated that he has witnessed the function with both the property owners and group managers who felt it was effective and that the bus stop has been located there without any accidents for some time now. Ms. Lohry commented that she would not support this request although she felt that it was necessary to have a bus shelter at this location however it should be the property owner’s responsibility to provide a better location for the shelter for its patrons. She felt it was up to the property owners to see that their patrons have safe access to their site which should not be located on Jackson Street. Mr. Thoms questioned if there had been any accidents recorded while the bus shelter was still located in the parking lot. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 4 September 16, 2014 Mr. Collins replied that there were not any accidents however there were a few incidents with wheelchairs being tipped over and that the pedestrian and vehicular traffic was too heavy to locate the bus shelter in front of the store. Mr. Thoms questioned if it would be possible to move the bus shelter further to the south. Mr. Collins indicated that they have spent 1½ years of planning with guidance from the Transit Advisory Board on this matter and this location was determined to be the best alternative. Mr. Thoms inquired if the public was included when it came to input on this location. Mr. Collins responded that the Transit Advisory Board meetings are open to the public and he felt that the majority of the public are in agreement with this proposed location. He added that there are a few people who would like to see it back in the parking lot. Motion by Vajgrt to approve the acceptance of easements for placement and associated maintenance area for a bus shelter proposed to be constructed at 1900 Jackson Street. Seconded by Cummings. Mr. Borsuk stated that he would not support this request as he did not feel it was in a safe location. He felt that the planning process in this case was disappointing and if there were issues with the development to the east, traffic concerns should have been addressed regarding this at that time. He further stated that the bus stop was too close to the driveway entrance. Mr. Thoms questioned if there were any other bus stops on Jackson Street further north of this location. Mr. Burich replied affirmatively. Mr. Thoms stated that he felt it was disconcerting that bicycle and pedestrian plan issues were not being taken into account as this was an adopted plan of the City and amenities to accommodate items such as bike racks should be taken into consideration. Mr. Gray commented that it would be nice to have the bus shelter located in front of the store but it was an unrealistic objective as the City does not have any leverage to require the property owner to grant the easement at this location. Mr. Collins stated that the Fair Acres complex is looking into installing a walking path to the bus shelter and he would discuss the placement of potential bike racks with them at that point. In regard to the location of bus stops, this aspect is under the prevue of the Transit Advisory Board. Ms. Lohry commented that when we are dealing with bus stops, the American’s with Disabilities Act behooves property owners to make accessibility for people to obtain safe access to necessities such as grocery stores. Ms. Propp stated that she agrees with Mr.Thoms on the bike rack issue however she would rather have the bus shelter at this location than no shelter at all and she would support this request. Motion carried 7-2. (Ayes-Bowen/Thoms/Fojtik/Cummings/Propp/Gray/Vajgrt. Nays-Borsuk/ Lohry.) __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 5 September 16, 2014 III. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT TO ALLOW PLACEMENT OF A PUBLIC RESTROOM AND SHELTER FACILITY AND ASSOCIATED AMENITIES LOCATED WEST OF 362 MIGHIGAN STREET (FORMER BOATWORKS PROPERTY) The City is requesting a conditional use permit/development plan approval to construct a public restroom facility and shelter, off-street parking area and kayak launch west of the former Boatworks property. 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 discussed the history of the site and the riverwalk development plans which part of the riverwalk has already been constructed on this side of the river and the remainder is still in progress. He reviewed the site plan and the building elevations for the proposed restroom and shelter facility and discussed features of the structure. He reviewed the building design which is similar to the restroom and shelter facility that was constructed in Menominee Park a few years ago and displayed a rendering of the proposed structure. He also discussed the parking area and the kayak and canoe launch feature and the street vacation of the terminus of Michigan Street and certified survey map to divide the parcels which will both be brought forward in the future. He also indicated that the costs for these amenities are included in the 2014 CIP and will also be partially funded from a grant received from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The proposed facility and related amenities are proposed to be constructed in 2014. Mr. Borsuk commented on the riverwalk design concept that was displayed on the screen and questioned if it was proposed to be residential land use in this location. Mr. Burich responded that the vacant area that used to be occupied by the Jeld-Wen factory was most likely going to be developed as single family homes or townhouses. Mr. Borsuk then questioned the storage unit type huts that remain on the site. Allen Davis, Director of Community Development, stated that this would be a short term use on the site and the remaining property would most likely be combined with the redevelopment of the Boatworks property. Mr. Fojtik inquired if the City has a standard for this type of structure. Mr. Davis responded that the Parks Department wanted this facility to match other restroom facilities that have been constructed in other park locations. Mr. Borsuk questioned the statement that the landscape plan would meet the minimum standard requirements of the zoning ordinance. Mr. Burich indicated that this was required. Mr. Borsuk commented that it was disturbing that we will only meet the minimum standards in this regard as he felt since it was on the riverwalk we would desire to exceed the landscaping standards. Mr. Thoms inquired if all the utilities in this area were city utilities. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 6 September 16, 2014 Mr. Nau responded that there are permanent easements over the right-of-way and any other utilities would be located through the Boatworks property. Mr. Gohde added that the Department of Public Works would need to review the proposed restroom/shelter facility’s location compared to the location of any existing underground utilities. Mr. Thoms commented that the conditional use permit allows the Plan Commission to set the standards for any landscaping features for this area. Mr. Gray commented that he had concerns about moving forward with this request prior to the vacation of Michigan Street and the approval of the certified survey map. He felt these items should have been completed first before requesting approval of the building design. Mr. Davis responded that it was a timing factor as the DNR has approved grant funding for completion of a portion of this work however we have to accommodate the construction to use the grant funding yet this year. Mr. Gray then questioned if there were any requirements for a specific distance between these types of shelters. Mr. Davis indicated that he was not aware of any requirements restricting the proximity of shelter structures however there are no other restroom/shelter facilities in this area that he is aware of. Mr. Gray also questioned if the City had considered offering food concessions at this location as it could be a source to generate revenues. Mr. Cummings left the meeting at 4:40 pm. Mr. Fojtik stated that things such as concessions was not part of the approval of the building design and would be an item to be considered at the Common Council level. Mr. Thoms inquired if the biofilter system referenced in the staff report would be to service the restroom facility development only. Mr. Gohde responded that this system was just to address the site development for the impervious surface being installed in the area of the restroom/shelter facility. Mr. Borsuk voiced his concerns with spending millions of dollars on the riverwalk without a very well planned restroom/shelter facility. Mr. Davis replied that the Parks Department was very happy with the Menominee Park facility and although an upper scale design for future development may be a better choice, the development of the remaining area could be commercial and it an unknown factor at this time. The design of the facility could probably be better matched at a later date when more of the remaining development has been decided however the grant funds currently approved by the DNR to help offset the costs of this construction would no longer be available at that time. Ms. Propp commented that she would like to see the big picture of the riverfront development plans as a whole as the current plans are conceptual only however she would support this request due to the funding conditions. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 7 September 16, 2014 Motion by Vajgrt to approve a conditional use permit/planned development to allow placement of a public restroom and shelter facility and associated amenities located west of 362 Michigan Street (former Boatworks property). Seconded by Bowen. Mr. Thoms agreed with Ms. Propp on the grant funding issue however he stated that the City has known that the riverwalk was going to be constructed for quite some time and he was not satisfied with the design standards and the landscaping plans may not be adequate either. He would support the request due to the grant funding issue. Mr. Borsuk stated that he did not feel this was justified by a lack of planning on the City’s part and the shelter constructed in Menominee Park should not have been used as an example for what would be appropriate on the riverwalk. He felt the City should go beyond just settling for what was already designed for another use and he would not support this request. Motion carried 5-3. (Ayes-Bowen/Fojtik/Propp/Gray/Vajgrt. Nays-Borsuk/Thoms/Lohry.) IV. ACCESS CONTROL VARIANCE TO PERMIT A DRIVEWAY WITH A REDUCED SETBACK FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2202 JACKSON STREET This item was withdrawn from the agenda. V. PUBLIC HEARING: 2015 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Staff requests review and acceptance of the 2015 Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The purpose of this review is for the Plan Commission to make a determination of consistency of the proposed programs and activities in the 2015 CIP with the City’s Comprehensive Plan, official maps, or other planned activities. The public hearing was opened at 4:50 pm. Mr. Nau reviewed the preliminary 2015-2019 comprehensive paving map as part of the Capital Improvements Program. Mr. Burich stated that questions regarding the CIP should be relating to its consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Borsuk commented that he felt the document was consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan but questioned what the process was to look at illegal hookups to the sanitary sewer system during road reconstruction. He also questioned the bike lanes striping effectiveness and if it had been evaluated since he felt it was confusing and too large on High Avenue. He also had questions relating to the bus propulsion systems and what we will be replacing them with and the content of the rubberized texture proposed for use on playground surfaces. Mr. Gohde responded that illegal hookups would be investigated by reviewing flows and laterals to private homes and described the process of staff monitoring any improper connections discovered. He stated he was not prepared to answer questions relating to the bike lane striping as this portion of the CIP was handled by the Transit Advisory Board. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 8 September 16, 2014 Mr. Burich commented that Mr. Krumenauer was the staff liaison for the Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee who has been working with establishing and striping bicycle lanes in the city and could further comment on that issue. Mr. Krumenauer stated that overall they have had fairly positive results with establishing the bicycle lanes and that the City is behind other communities in this aspect of development. He further stated that they are working much closer with the Department of Public Works on the issue and East Central Regional Planning Commission has also been involved. They are also working with the State to provide information on where bicycle lanes go to address how to continue paths or create new ones. He felt that the Department of Public Works has done a good job with addressing bike lanes in the CIP however design considerations still have to be discussed. To date they have developed routes and have experienced good success. Mr. Gohde further stated that as far as the rubberized asphalt, he is not familiar with it enough to comment on that subject or the questions relating to the bus propulsion which lists both diesel and CNG but does not split out the cost effectiveness in the CIP document. Mr. Thoms inquired if there was anything contrary to the Comprehensive Plan in terms of street widths that would require any amendments. Mr. Gohde replied that on page 3, W. New York Avenue is proposed to be reconstructed at 32 feet in width due to the lack of existing right-of-way which is consistent with what was constructed on the west side a few year ago. He also stated that there were a few streets in other areas that are 30 feet in residential areas that do not have adequate room to accommodate the current code standards for street widths. Mr. Thoms questioned if the Plan Commission would need to approve the CIP with exception to the Comprehensive Plan due to the narrower street widths in some areas of the city. Mr. Burich indicated that this was a different situation than some other issues such as burying of utilities that was a recommendation of the Comprehensive Plan. Right-of-way for arterial streets have a standard width however retrofitting old streets that do not have adequate room to accommodate these widths is a different situation. Mr. Thoms asked to clarify that 60 feet and 32 feet were the City’s standards for street widths depending on the classification of the street. Mr. Burich responded that these are the current standards however retrofitting situations are different as how else do you deal with substandard right-of-ways in some neighborhoods. It is more of a technical issue and in the future some language in the Comprehensive Plan may need to be adjusted to account for this in some of the older portions of the city that cannot meet these standards without the reduction of terraces or sidewalks to allow adequate room to widen the street. He did not feel it was inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan as these standards simply cannot be met in older areas of the city. Mr. Thoms commented that on page 38, the CIP refers to $50,000 for Bicycle and Pedestrian infrastructure and questioned if there was any additional funding to assist with these plans. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 9 September 16, 2014 Mr. Krumenauer replied that there are several different funding resources that the Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee are researching and named a few of the grant sources that could potentially offer additional funding for this purpose. Mr. Thoms questioned if the parking garage is City owned. Mr. Burich responded affirmatively. Ms. Lohry requested further information on the chips surrounding the playground equipment in the parks being replaced with the rubberized asphalt. Mr. Gohde reiterated that he was not prepared to answer questions relating to this issue however it would be similar to the material used in Menominee Park and provides an ADA compliant surface. Ms. Lohry stated that she had concerns with the heat of summer and how it would be effected by temperature and if it was the same material that is used by the school system in their playground areas. She also questioned who checks on the environmental safety of the use of this material. Mr. Gohde responded that the material is used standardly in other communities and the Parks Department would have more detail on this matter than he could offer. Mr. Borsuk questioned if retrofitting the streets would be compromising the CIP document in any way. Mr. Burich further discussed the situation of not being able to obtain certain widths in older areas of the city when streets are reconstructed and referenced the term “characteristics” that is used numerous times in the Comprehensive Plan. He did not feel that this issue would compromise the document in any way and the Department of Public Works will look into the matter and evaluate the situation when streets are reconstructed and address it accordingly. Mr. Borsuk questioned the door and door jamb replacements and inquired as to what materials would be used for the replacements. Mr. Gohde stated that the materials to be used would be evaluated however regular steel was used in the past. Mr. Gray commented that he felt the bike lanes on Sawyer Street extending to Oshkosh Avenue were dangerous the way they are currently laid out. He further stated that he did not see the need for the CIP and Comprehensive Plan to match exactly as the Comprehensive Plan is a periodic check list and the CIP is a 1-5 year plan. He felt the 2015 CIP is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan with the exception of equipment replacement as some of the CIP items are not applicable to the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Thoms questioned why we are replacing a fire truck that is only 25 years old. David Patek, Director of Public Works, responded that the Fire Department indicated that the truck is in need of replacement. Mr. Gray commented that other departments do not have representation here to discuss the CIP expenditures for their departments and he felt that department heads should all be present to address __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 10 September 16, 2014 questions relating to their expenses as only the department heads from Public Works and Community Development were on hand today. The public hearing was closed at 5:15 pm. Motion by Vajgrt to accept the 2015 Capital Improvement Program with a finding that listed projects are not in conflict with the City of Oshkosh’s Comprehensive Plan. Seconded by Propp. Discussion ensued regarding how the public hearing is advertised and noticed to ensure that the public is informed as to how their tax dollars are expended. Motion carried 8-0. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 5:20 pm. (Vajgrt/Lohry) Respectfully submitted, Darryn Burich Director of Planning Services