Town Hall, Wednesday February 20, 2002 for approval at the

3/20/02 meeting


Chairperson Bellmer called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.


PRESENT:  Chairperson Bellmer and Planning Commissioners’ Michael Van

                     Dyke, Dennis Jochman, Harold Pelton, Kris Koeppe, and Richard

                     Ratchman. Community Development Director George Dearborn and

                     Associate Planner Jeffrey Smith.


EXCUSED:  Commissioner Lewis


ALSO PRESENT:   Tom Cashman

                                 Ed Fetzer

                                 Jim Stapel

                                 Dawn Sullivan

                                 Bob Liedl

                                 Suzanne Derby

                                 Dennis Kraft

                                 Don Gehrt


Approval of Minutes – January 16, 2002


Motion by Chairperson Bellmer, seconded by Commissioner Van Dyke, to approve the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting on January 16, 2002 as submitted. Motion carried with 5 Aye, 2 Excused (Commissioners’ Jochman and Lewis).


1.  Variance – James Stapel – 1580 Lakeshore Drive – (008-0628)


Director Dearborn reported to the Commission that the variance request would allow a roof to be raised on a portion of a home that was located within the 75 ft. shoreland setback. Director Dearborn explained that the existing roof was flat and it required constant repair. Therefore, the roof was proposed to be raised in order to match the rest of the existing home. Furthermore, the footprint of the structure will remain the same. Based on these conditions, Director Dearborn stated that the variance request met the three justifications for a variance (exceptional circumstance, preservation of property rights, absence of detriment). Finally, Director Dearborn explained that Town staff received a call supporting the variance and another opposing it.



Jim Stapel, the applicant, confirmed with Chairperson Bellmer that the 34’ x 34’ addition in the rear was the portion of the home that would have the raised roof. Mr. Stapel then showed pictures of this portion of the home. Mr. Stapel went on to state that the peaked roof would in effect create a new upper addition that would have three windows.


Tom Cashman, 1604 Lakeshore Dr., pointed out that there would be a new addition, not just a raised roof. Furthermore, Mr. Cashman estimated the new height of the raised roof/addition, which would be too high for visibility in his opinion.


Commissioner Jochman stated that the three new windows for the upper addition was a new item which was not in the original variance application. Director Dearborn and Associate Planner, Jeffrey Smith, soon confirmed this revelation. Also, Commissioner Jochman pointed out that the view would be altered with the proposed raised roof. Furthermore, since there would now be a new structure, Commissioner Jochman stated that there may need to be other alternative design guidelines explored which would address the visibility issue. Town staff could work with the applicant to explore some alternative options.


Mr. Stapel was open to discussing alternative designs for the proposed raised roof. Mr. Stapel would need a longer delay since it was his parents’ home and they would be unavailable for the next meeting.


Motion by Commissioner Jochman, seconded by Commissioner Harold, to delay the

Variance for sixty-days in order to explore other options with Town staff. Motion carried with 6 Aye, 1 Excused.


Chairperson Bellmer, Commissioners’ Van Dyke, Pelton, Jochman, Koeppe, Ratchman Aye; Commissioner Lewis Excused.


2.  Preliminary Plat – Martenson & Eisele – Shady Springs Estates VI - (008-0223)


Director Dearborn explained that a revised preliminary plat was recently submitted to staff, which now showed the road going all the way through from Martingale Lane to Whippletree Lane. It did show a temporary cul-de-sac since the project could be phased. The preliminary plat proposed seven new single-family lots but it did not plat the entire subject property and furthermore, it still included two storage (accessory) buildings on the unplatted portion. Director Dearborn then went on to explain that the Town and County subdivision ordinances would not allow having an unplatted lot that was 4 acres or less. Since this was the case, the Town and County could not accept this preliminary plat. In addition, the storage buildings would create a zoning nonconformance since there cannot be accessory buildings located on an R-2 (Single-Family) lot. Therefore, Director Dearborn stated that the entire property must be platted and the storage buildings be removed in order for the plat to receive approval.


Director Dearborn then discussed two alternative options, proposed by Town staff, which was as follows:


1.      Plat the entire property and phase it, with the storage buildings being removed when the second phased was proposed. The details of this arrangement could be specified in the Developers Agreement for this project. Furthermore, the agreement would state that the second phase must occur in no more than 2-3 years.

2.      Modify the preliminary plat to have an unplatted lot that is more than 4 acres.


Dawn Sullivan, the surveyor for the plat, stated that there were approximately 2 ½  unplatted acres in the proposed preliminary plat and three or four lots would have to be removed in order to arrive at an unplatted lot of more than 4 acres.


Don Gehrt, the developer, told the Commission that it would not be feasible to remove three or four lots. Mr. Gehrt later explained that the road would go all the way through earlier in the process, which would then require the storage buildings to be removed.


Commissioner Jochman suggested that when a certain percentage of lots were sold (e.g. 75 percent), then the storage buildings would have to be removed. Director Dearborn responded be explaining that he would prefer a two year maximum for the start of phase two (specified in Developers Agreement), which would require the removal of the storage buildings.


Commissioner Pelton asked Mr. Gehrt if he would need the storage buildings if the lots were sold. Mr. Gehrt then stated that he would need them for at least five years.


Motion by Commissioner Pelton, seconded by Commissioner Koeppe, to delay the preliminary plat for thirty-days in order for the applicant to make revisions that would be acceptable to Town staff. Motion carried with 6 Aye, 1 Excused.


Chairperson Bellmer, Commissioners’ Van Dyke, Pelton, Jochman, Koeppe, Ratchman Aye; Commissioner Lewis Excused.





1. Conditional Use Permit – Mark Mertens – Golf Bridge Dr. – (008-0264-06, 008-0264-07)


Director Dearborn explained that there would be no formal recommendation on this CUP by the Commission since it was withdrawn. A new application will be submitted by a new property owner in the near future.






1. Comprehensive Plan Update - Transportation and Utilities/Community Facilities Elements


The main issues/concerns expressed on the Transportation Element by the consultant for the comprehensive plan, Jon Bartz, Town staff, and the public were as follows:


  1. Transit – include a discussion on the Town’s contribution to Valley Transit and ridership figures in the Town. There were concerns on cost but it is still needed in some capacity, especially with an aging population that seems to want to stay mobile.
  2. Traffic – Impact of the opening of the USH 41 north to USH 10 west ramp on the traffic counts at CTH BB and American Dr. The completion of the interchange is very important since the lack of all connection ramps limits or delays development/growth. Also, the faster the interchange is completed, the faster other road problems/issues will be corrected/addressed. Traffic flow improvements are very important as opposed to just concentrating on having more traffic lights and stop signs. Overpasses have improved traffic flow.
  3. Train – discuss the impact of dual tracks on the Duluth-Chicago north/south route on crossings in the Town (CB Rd., Irish Rd., Clayton Rd.).
  4. Transportation – trend toward elimination of at-grade crossings. Need for traffic signage? Restricting/prohibiting billboards are a good policy. Need for park & ride transportation? Further use of roundabouts-they can be good traffic controlling devices. The transportation system should support the Gateway project (both residential & commercial). For example, a good start is the requirement of a trail on the north side and a sidewalk on the south side of W. American Drive. Trails have been supported by surveys of Town residents. The Town should have a Capital Improvements Plan.
  5. Need to change specific rural roads to urban road standards (e.g. Shady Ln. Clayton Rd., Irish Rd.)
  6. Transport Objective f. – providing safe & comfortable pedestrian and bicycle facilities in all areas of the Town, all neighborhoods should be designed to meet these needs = tough objective.
  7. Transport Objective o. – encouraging existing developments to improve aesthetics/screening, etc. = should be more specific by identifying situations when this can occur.
  8. Transport Objective r. – minimize impact of new transportation on existing neighborhoods, businesses & natural resources  =need more specific examples.
  9. An objective concerning school bus stops may need to be added.


The main issues/concerns expressed on the Utilities/Community Facilities Element by the consultant for the comprehensive plan, Jon Bartz, Town staff, and the public were as follows:


  1. Telecommunications – look at Appleton/Grand Chute study. A local ordinance may be needed, especially since the County Zoning Ordinance limits Town control on certain zoning districts (commercial, industrial).
  2. Schools – check with Appleton School District if there are students on the NE part of the Town. Check with Neenah/Menasha on busing policy (students walk within 1 mile of school?). Town school bus policy? Neenah schools will be affected by the growth in the Town.
  3. Streets – transition from ditches to storm sewer, especially on the West side of the Town, which is flat. Must continue projects such as Cold Spring Rd./Jacobsen Rd. reconstructions. This also ties in with transportation since this will expand room for trails along these roads.
  4. Water – preserve quality of water supply.
  5. Solid Waste – there are no active landfills; map inactive landfills and what is done to monitor them.
  6. Fire Dept. – objective related to paid-on-call versus full-time; discuss first responders. When Future Land Use Map prepared, it will help Fire & Police determine future needs.
  7. Should Town provide other services? (fiber optic, cable, gas, electric).
  8. Capital Improvement Plan needed.
  9. Map future parks, open space, environmental corridors.
  10. Objective h. – change to January 1, 2003 or change Transportation Objective o. to October 1, 2003.





Motion by Commissioner Koeppe, seconded by Commissioner Van Dyke, to adjourn the meeting at 7:33 p.m. Motion carried with 4 Aye, 3 Excused (Comm. Lewis; Comm. Pelton left at 6:17 p.m.; Chairperson Bellmer left at 6:20 p.m.).



                                                                                   Respectfully submitted,





                                                                                    Jeffrey Smith

                                                                                    Associate Planner