Town Board Approved November 8, 99




Municipal Complex - Assembly Room

Monday, September 27, 1999


Agendas with resolutions were posted at the Municipal Complex, Fire Station 40, Sanitary District No. 4, Appleton Public Library, Menasha Public Library, and Neenah Public Library.


        Town Chair Arden Tews called the Regular Meeting of the Town Board of Supervisors to order at 6:00 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance.

        Clerk Sprague noted the roll as follows:


        Arden Tews, Town Chair Bob Sprague, Supervisor #2

        Jerry Jurgensen, Supervisor #3 Allen Nennig, Supervisor #4

        Carlene Sprague, Town Clerk Carl Sutter, Town Engineer

        John Claypool, Town Attorney Grace Vander Velden, Dir. of Finance

        George Dearborn, Dir. of Com. Dev. Gaylene Nash, Asst. to Admin.

        Don Cox, Fire Chief

        EXCUSED: Jeanne Krueger, Supervisor #1 and Bogdan "Bob" Vitas, Administrator

        ALSO PRESENT: See Attached separate listing final page.


      1. 990913-1: Addendum #1 to Amended State/ Municipal Agreement USH 45 - Springroad Drive - STH 150 Construction Project

MOTION: Supervisor Sprague, second Supervisor Jurgensen to refer the resolution indefinitely until such time that the Town Board has all the information needed. Motion carried unanimously, with Supervisor Krueger excused.


A. 990927-1: Conditional Use Permit - Dennis Watermolen - Easy Shady Lane (008-0131)

A signed petition was received in the Clerk's office on September 27, 1999 from Town residents Barb Heeter of 1960 Tumblebrook Road Neenah, and Mark Bachorz of 832 Tumblebrook Road with 186 signatures.

The petition states: "We, the undersigned, oppose the 120 unit multi-family complex for the following reasons:

1. Traffic volume and pedestrian safety on Shady Lane; 2. Complex is inconsistent with the Town of Menasha Development Plan; 3. Proposed density of this complex is almost 4 times the existing surrounding developments; 4. Reduces the marketability of our homes; 5. Piecemeal development is strongly discouraged by the town based on their plan.

The following has been transcribed and interpreted as accurately as possible.

Director Dearborn opened the discussion by stating that this application is for a conditional use permit for a proposed multiple family development located on E. Shady Lane. It consists of 120 units on this property. The Planning Commission, upon review of this, made a recommendation of approval with a number of conditions. There were 10 conditions, which were reviewed. He stated that the key ones were the landscape plan, which will be prepared for staff review, screening the development from adjacent property. The solid fence shall be constructed to screen the development from the adjacent single family, and duplex development on the north side of the property. That a pedestrian trail be constructed along E. Shady Lane. That improvements be made, including left and right turn lanes on the E. Shady Lane entrance to address the increased traffic flow and that further all other requirements of the conditions be met. He did not read all of the conditions but highlighted the items discussed. The Planning Commission in their review, felt that this development did comply with the Comprehensive Plan in that the developer proposed the development of 9.5 units per acre. The surrounding uses include a manufactured housing development adjacent, which is R-3, and commercial property, to the south, which is a single family development.

Chairman Tews asked if there were any questions from the Town Board.

Supervisor Jurgensen, asked about George Dearborn's memo that there would be (3) 16 unit buildings, and there are actually 6.

George Dearborn, stated "That's correct, there will be 6. That was a 'typo'". We corrected that at the Planning Commission meeting.

Chairman Tews mentioned that the Town Board review the number of faxes and should take a minute to review the comments received at the last minute.

George Dearborn mentioned that he did receive a number of phone calls and the Town Board should have a copy of all the emails in their packets.

Chairman Tews, Any comments from the audience? Your name and address for the Clerk please.

Tim Mullen, 881 Tumblebrook Road, asked to request some minutes to address this and represent the surrounding community. Myself and Lee Heeter would just like to represent, we put together a couple items associated with this. From our understanding the issue facing us is, because this is a conditional use permit and is zoned R-5. The conditions require a permit as well as meet the Town's Comprehensive Plan is a critical issue. I believe as the Town Board, you support the plan. We, as residents, also support the Plan and feel it is a very good Plan. It is our concern that the Plan will be followed in making decisions like this zoning.

Lee Heeter, 1960 Tumblebrook Road, he would like to explain that we reviewed the Town's Comprehensive Plan. Under the heading of Town of Menasha Land Use Plan Map Districts, it reads, "In general, the residential uses in this district shall be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood with respect to density and character of development. An example, building size, style, traffic generation, etc. Proposed new uses shall not create nuisance situations in the neighborhood. An example, undue noise, traffic, overburden of capacity of schools that serve the area."

What we would like to follow with, keeping that in mind, is some examples from the Comprehensive Plan where we feel this development is not consistent. We feel that the development is not compatible with the surrounding area for many reasons.

Mr. Heeter prepared an overhead presentation. The 1st overhead entitled "The First Goal" of the Growth Management Section of the Plan. "To encourage orderly and planned pattern of community growth and development". We feel that the mixed uses of the areas around the development, such as business, warehouse, single family, duplexes and manufactured housing have created anything but an orderly and planned pattern of community development. The 2nd objective is to promote planned urban communities, which contain centralized compact, contiguous and compatible urban development patterns. Again the word "compatible". We don't feel that this development meets the Plan's criteria for compatible development patterns.

"Other Goals" Goal: 2-1 "Developments enhance the quality of life of all residents." Goal: 2-2 "That they contribute to the general health and safety and welfare of the community residents and property owners." Safety is a big issue for us on Shady Lane, which will be addressed later.

Objective 2-2 "To protect established viable neighborhoods from intrusions by incompatible land uses." The next objective, "To improve the visual quality and physical design of the Town of Menasha."

The next overhead is from the Transportation Section. Again, that new development project should accommodate the needs of pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders and the physically challenged. he development site plan review and conditional use standards are that these requirements be made part of all new development and re-development projects. There has been a sidewalk proposed in front of this development that basically goes nowhere. This would not meet this transportation objective.

The next item "Parks and Recreation". The objective is that all neighborhoods in the Town are located within 1/4 to 1/2 mile of a public neighborhood park. This development is 1 mile from the closest park, which is Schildt Park. Tim Mullen will add to that a bit later.

The next overhead is under, "The Town of Menasha Land Developments and Policy" section. Paragraph (3) reads, "That piece meal, unplanned development is strongly discouraged by the Town." We feel that is exactly what we have in this area. It's piece meal and unplanned development, and we don't feel that it should be made worse with additional diverse usage. The next item "The Town will strive for compatibility of adjacent land uses by requiring site plan review for all duplex, multiple family, residential, commercial office, industrial, etc." We don't feel that we have compatibility. The next item "Incompatible land uses should be buffered from each other the strategic use of plant materials decorative fences, walls and berms." The developer has offered and the requirements for the conditional use permit require these things, and what was interesting is that on the copy of the plan that we reviewed, somebody had placed some comments there, that read "Why create new incompatibility- limit severely". We couldn't agree more.

The next transparency "Land Use and Transportation Plan". These are observations that the Town made of existing situations in the Town. In those instances, where different land uses are mixed together in close proximity, a lack of advanced detailed neighborhood planning, high quality site planning and performance standards has contributed to a chaotic undesirable land use pattern. The potential positive results of mixed developments such as less automobile dependency, less air pollution, and greater mobility for various age groups, have not been achieved. A lack of sidewalks and off street bicycle paths in the Town forces pedestrians to walk in heavily traveled streets. Bicyclists need to ride in close proximity to significant volumes of auto and truck traffic. During a background analysis phase of the planning project, the Town's Planning Consultant witnessed numerous Town residents walking in heavily traveled portions of the Town roads. Pedestrians have no other option to get from house to house or neighborhood to neighborhood. One of our main issues is the safety on Shady Lane. Everything that the Planning Consultant viewed is truth on Shady Lane and we feel that this complex will make a bad situation worse.

The next transparency "Land Use Planned Map Districts" Mixed residential land use district states that the goal is that the surrounding and existing land use patterns, street network, utility system and ability of public facilities to serve the area and housing market condition should be carefully studied by the Town and the Petitioner to determine what type of residential use is most appropriate for lands that are designated mixed residential on the land use map.

In general, the residential uses in the district shall be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood with respect to density and character of development. Tim Mullen will show later that the density issue is an issue. It is not compatible with the density in the surrounding area. Also, the building size, style, traffic generation is not compatible. Proposed new usage shall not create nuisance situations in the neighborhood, undue noise, traffic, or overburden of schools. We believe that we will have a nuisance situation, namely traffic. We believe that the project size and location is counter productive to the Town's own Plan and Tim Mullen will touch on the density issue later.

This is from the Community Planning Design Guidelines; it reads "That any high density residential development that abuts established and viable single family neighborhoods, should be carefully designed to minimize potential negative impacts on the lower density areas. They should meet the following standards. The project will not have an undue adverse effect on the character of the surrounding neighborhood nor result in large pockets of high-density housing." We feel that's exactly what this development does. The single family home shall be considered the primary land use in most residential neighborhoods. Area schools can accommodate new students that may live in the project. The street and sidewalk system in the neighborhood can handle the increased amount of traffic the project will generate. Shady Lane does not do this and there is no sidewalk system. The area is served by adequate parks and recreation facilities. Again Tim Mullen will comment on that further. The following design guidelines are recommended for all new and expanded multiple family residential developments. They should be added to the Town's Zoning Ordinance and enforced during the site plan review, conditional use and Planned Unit Development. Regarding architectural design, they should be compatible with and fit in the context with the surrounding neighborhood. This includes the selection of the building, façade materials and building height, I would like to emphasize building bulk setbacks, window and door styles placement roof designs, etc.

And lastly, under industrial uses, this doesn't really apply, but it was an interesting paragraph. In most residential neighborhoods, the single family home should be considered the highest and best land use and therefore the single family home should be protected from intrusions by more intensive land uses. We believe that this project is counter-productive to the Town's Goals and Objectives for the established neighborhood. The Comprehensive Development Plan implementation section; "The Town of Menasha's Comprehensive Development Plan is intended to guide all decisions related to community development in the Town. All public and private sector community development related decisions should be made in context with the Plans Goals Objectives and Policies and recommendations. Specifically, the Plan should be used as a guide when site plans are reviewed, rezonings are proposed, conditional use requests are considered, subdivision plats are reviewed and public utility improvements or extensions are proposed."

Tim Mullen stated that clearly, if you look at it, we are very much in support of the Plan that is developed. The question is, are we realistically using to drive decisions, which we anticipate is the intention as you, represent the constituents.

I would like to go back a little bit and emphasize a couple of key points that we made. (No. 1) it was a question, and I know that this came up from the last meeting that the proposed density level is not significantly higher than the residential area surrounding this 12.6 acres. But if you look at it in reality this property which joins up against density acres of 1.9 units per acre, 3.938 units per acre is a pretty significant difference from 9.5 units per acre. I think, as we look that how it is zoned, perhaps it is different, but in reality these areas are already developed. They aren't going to change. And looking at that too, we also looked at how many acres are currently developed at these different density levels. And if you look over here, this is the density per acre along the other access. If you look through the different developments, this first one is Millbrook, Prairie Creek is 61 acres. The next development is 1.8 units per acre. The next one here is Brookfield Manor. That is developed at 1.9 units per acre. Zero Nennig Plat at Bridgeview is a 2.0. Shady Springs, etc. If you look again at the number of acres that are developed by the current density, for what we're proposing what is on the table right now , if you see this red line out at 9.5 acres and this would be 12.6 acres at a density of 9.5 units per acre. In our opinion, we feel that it is a significant difference. If you look at the average density of the neighborhood today, of the surrounding area, 2.5 units per acre is the current density. As the current project is 3.8 times the average current density and it's also 2.4 times the density of the highest current area that is already developed surrounding this location.

The concern here again is the compatibility. Look at the density today, 2.5 and if you took those 12.6 acres and if that was developed right now, at the average density of the current area you would be proposing 31-32 units. If you took the highest current density, that's currently developed (3.9) units per acre, you would be looking at 49 units. Currently the proposal on the table is at 9.5 or 120 units. We feel that this project is significantly out of line with the existing residences.

One of the other issues brought up at the last meeting, was the green space, and the fact that this is a lot of units, actually, I was wrong. This was quoted as 47% of the actual new development that was proposed would be green space. I took that on a per unit basis, as this proposed development is 47 x 47 square feet of green space per unit. I wasn't able to do this for all the surrounding areas but I did take the adjacent property of this Brookfield Manor looking at that development which is larger 17.24 acres, the current green space is 77% across the 32 units . . .

The tape was interrupted here.

The residents summarized why the Watermolen project is not compatible with the Town of Menasha's Comprehensive Plan. They said they would be willing to meet as a committee with the developer to develop another plan that would meet their objectives.

Attorney Wanezek representing Dennis Watermolen, responded to the points raised by the Town residents. He stated that the zoning is presently R-5 and Mr. Wanezek met the conditions made to him by the Planning Commission. The "Not in my neighborhood and I don't want any multi family development" is not an objective. This is the best and in my opinion most practical use of this property. The homes in this area in the subdivisions were built in the last 10-15 years. The zoning was made in the early 1970's. When people build homes, they have the responsibility to find out what type of zoning there is in the surrounding properties.

Barb Heeter, Town resident, 1960 Tumblebrook Drive cited reasons of safety for not allowing this development. 180-240 additional vehicles will make E. Shady Lane an unsafe road.

Dennis Watermolen, Developer, addressed the pedestrian trail issue and said he plans to include a trail across his property. As far as green area, 20% is needed and this project will have 46%.

Jane Hermans, 1963 Tumblebrook Court stated that you are going to put a sidewalk in and where will it go? Are you just going to put up 50 yards of sidewalk?

George Dearborn stated that as the re-construction of E. Shady Lane progresses so would the trail construction. It would be done in phases.

Joann Wooldridge, 2178 Redtail Drive stated that she had heard that between 7-10 years down the road that E. Shady Lane would be re-constructed.

Harold Pelton, 2188 W. Prairie Creek Drive stated that Cold Spring and Shady Lanes have a construction problem. The traffic will not support these roads.

Gary Smith, 831 Trailsway Lane said that 1-1/2 years ago, he had applied for a garage permit and was turned down. The garage for this development will be 10 feet away from his back yard.

Mark Bachorz, 832 Tumblebrook Road stated that he viewed Mr. Watermolen's other development and the road supporting that address has 4 lanes versus 2 lanes. He cited that Shady Lane cannot support this additional traffic. Tina Bachorz stated that when they built their home, there was a farm on this property. She expected that to remain.

The Town residents stated that they elected the Supervisors and now the residents feel that you are passing the buck.

Supervisor Jurgensen stated that in his summation that if the people are willing to work with the developer, that we should wait to see if an agreement could be reached.

Tim Mullen stated that we aren't interested in something where we can't address the safety issues. We would, as tax payers, like the Supervisor support.

Mr. Watermolen stated that he is also a taxpayer on this 12 acre parcel. If there is someone here who wants to buy this property, fine, go ahead.

Much more discussion ensued. The large traffic volume was a major concern for area residents.

Supervisor Sprague suggests that the developer work with the Town residents to work on reaching an agreement.

George Dearborn stated that the land was zoned R-5 in 1976. The portion behind Club West was rezoned 1-1/2 years ago.

MOTION: Supervisor Jurgensen, second Supervisor Sprague to adopt the resolution and approve the conditional use permit with the conditions as stated on the resolution. Motion was defeated unanimously, with Supervisor Krueger excused.

Chairman Tews recessed the meeting for 5 minutes.

  1. 990927-2: Rezoning Versatile Development - Racine Street, Hwy. 441 & Midway Road - (008-0056-05)

MOTION: Supervisor Sprague, second Supervisor Nennig to adopt the resolution and approve the rezoning of Versatile Development project on Racine Street. Motion carried unanimously, with Supervisor Krueger excused.

C. 990927-3: Rezoning Gerald Altenhofen, Racine Street & Century Oaks Drive - (008-0053, 008-0056-09, 008-0056-08)

MOTION: Supervisor Sprague, second Supervisor Jurgensen to adopt the resolution and approve the rezoning from M-1 to R-4 as submitted. Motion carried unanimously, with Supervisor Krueger excused.

D. 990927-4: Certified Survey Maps, Gerald Altenhofen - Century Oaks Drive - (008- 0056-09)

  1. 990927-5: Certified Survey Map - Gerald Altenhofen - Racine Drive - (008-0053, 008-0056-08, 008-0056-09)

F. 990927-6: Certified Survey Map - Robert Leibold Associates, Inc. and Window Specialists of Wisconsin Inc. - 983 Ehlers Road - (008-0476-04-02, and 008-0476-08)

G. 990927-7: A Preliminary Resolution authorizing the vacating of that portion of Sell Drive to Zephyr Drive (as indicated on the attached map, Exhibit A) as located within the Town of Menasha, Winnebago County, State of Wisconsin and setting the statutory required public hearing.

H. 990927-8: Bid Award - West American Drive Street Construction Project - (North Clayton Avenue to Irish Road)

I. 990927-9: Reconsideration of Speed Reduction Request on CTH BB (West of Irish Road to Hwy. 45).

J. 990927-10: LGIP - Depository Resolution

K. 990927-11: Budget Transfer - Fire Department Equipment

L. 990927-12: Expenditures

    1. Regular Town Board Meeting – 8/09/99
    2. Regular Town Board Meeting – 8/23/99
    3. Special Town Board Meeting - 8/30/99

MOTION: Supervisor Jurgensen, second Supervisor Sprague to accept the minutes as submitted. Motion carried unanimously, with Supervisor Krueger excused.


    1. Park Commission Meeting Minutes – 8/25/99

    2. Police Department Activity/Crime Report - 7/99

    3. Municipal Court – 08/99

MOTION: Supervisor Sprague, second Supervisor Nennig to accept the correspondence for filing. Motion carried unanimously, with Supervisor Krueger excused.


    1. Jeanne Krueger, Supervisor #1 – Excused

    2. Robert Sprague, Supervisor #2 – 3. Jerry Jurgensen, Supervisor #3 – None

    3. Allen Nennig, Supervisor #4

Supervisor Nennig reported on an Urban Town's meeting.that he recently attended.

E. Arden Tews, Town Chairman

Chairman Tews stated that he received a letter from Thomas Banks who lives on Shangra La Lane. Mr. Banks stated that the blasting has discolored his water.

F. Other Town Officials

Grace Vander Velden, Director of FinanceNone

Don Cox, Fire Chief

Chief Cox stated that the Fire Department will be having their Open House on Sunday, October 3rd.

George Dearborn, Director of Community DevelopmentNone

Gaylene Nash - Administrative Aide to the Town Administrator

Gaylene Nash reported on the staff's participation in the Fox Cities Marathon. Participants were Fire Chief, Cox, Judge Kachinsky and Gaylene. Arden Tews and EileenTews, went on the Mayorial Walk.


  1. ANNOUNCEMENTS – Same as on Agenda

At 7:50 p.m., MOTION: Supervisor Sprague, second Supervisor Nennig to adjourn the regular meeting of the Town Board of Supervisors. Motion carried unanimously, with Supervisor Krueger excused.

Respectfully submitted,



Carlene L. Sprague

Town Clerk


Joann Wooldridge Jeff Wooldridge Frank Olson

Warren Wanezek Harold Pelton Jerome Nennig

Lee Heeter Paul Holinbeck Gerald Altenhofen

Mark Smith Diane Smith Mark Bachorz

Tina Bachorz Joyce Nilsolai Harland Sommer

Barbara Heeter Lani Mc Connell Wendy Hoffman

Jeff Kippenhan Craig Fickel Michelle Schuler

Tim Schuler Mark Schmitt Tom Vandeyacht

Randy Kuehl Butch Hintz Alice Hintz

Margaret Drawenek Sallie Rashid Tom Mc Hugh

Jan Mc Hugh Melissa Brateng John Vandehey

Ken Neveau Joyce Neveau Jill Georger

Jane Hermans Vicki Koerner Gary Smith

Shayne Johnson Dave Sturm Joe Ray

Julie Ray Lyle Crandall Brian Mathison

Elaine Goltz Bruce Goltz Joe Burriss

Joe Stafford Marilyn Sturm Al Sturm

Mr. Neary Randy Kees Beth Davis

John Davis Jo Holden Grace Petersen

Gina Rosauer Terry Hampton