Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutesPLAN COMMISSION MINUTES November 3, 2020 PRESENT: Margy Davey, Michael Ford, John Kiefer, Justin Mitchell, Thomas Perry, Jay Stengel, Mamadou Coulibaly, Kathleen Propp, Phillip Marshall EXCUSED: John Hinz, Derek Groth STAFF: Mark Lyons, Planning Services Manager; Brian Slusarek, Planner; Steven Wiley, Associate Planner; Allen Davis, Community Development Director; Justin Gierach, Engineering Division Manger Chairperson Propp called the meeting to order at 4:00 pm. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. The minutes of October 21, 2020 were approved as presented. (Davey/Kiefer) I. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMEMT FOR AN INSTITUTIONAL RESIDENTIAL USE AT 851 COUNTY ROAD Y Site Inspections Report: No commissioners reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit amendment for an institutional residential use with a second occupant at 851 County Road Y. Mr. Slusarek presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in this area. In December 2018, a conditional use permit was approved to establish an institutional residential facility for a County resident convicted of a sexual offense (Wis. Stat. 980) and deemed ready for release. The CUP approval included a condition that the residential structure is limited to a maximum density of one occupant and maximum of two bedrooms. The applicant is now requesting a CUP amendment to allow a second resident, also convicted of a sexual offense (Wis. Stat. 980) and deemed ready for release. The existing home has two bedrooms and no construction or alterations to the property are anticipated. The applicant notes that due to the particular resident intended to be housed at the site, state law imposes some limits on what can be located within a certain proximity of the subject parcel. In particular, schools, child care facilities, public parks, places of worship or youth centers cannot be located within 1,500 feet of the parcel. As the applicant owns the surrounding land beyond 1,500 feet from the parcel, the applicant can reasonably guarantee that land within that proximity will not be used for these purposes. No plans have been submitted for the site or facility as the only change to the site will be an added resident at the existing manufactured home. He said that staff is in support of the CUP amendment for the institutional residential use as the proposed use has Plan Commission Minutes November 3, 2020 already been established on the site, which is an appropriate location based on the surrounding County government land uses. Ms. Propp opened technical questions to staff. Mr. Perry asked if the applicant is the provider or the county. Mr. Lyons replied that the applicant is the county. Ms. Propp opened up the public hearing and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. Ms. Mary Anne Mueller thanked the commission for their time and consideration. She said that the county was here a couple of years ago due to the state statute and legislature basically putting the onus on the county to find housing for 980 sex offenders. There are a number of requirements that need to be met and they thought that this location, which is actually on county -owned land, was the best location given that it was in the shadow of the Sherriff's Office and it was not near residential housing. As staff indicated, there are two bedrooms there and they are only asking to use the other bedroom because there is one resident in the manufactured home currently. They believe the people who are in that home are strictly monitored, so there are not comings and goings. She explained that 980s are deemed serious sex offenders, so they are not allowed to leave the premises during the first year without a parole officer. They are basically trying to react to what the state has done with their legislation. She said they do not believe there is going to be any impact and they would also be able to satisfy the law. There were no public comments on this item. Mr. Perry stated that he had concerns about this two years ago and he has concerns about this now. His main concern is with the contractor who is contracting with the county. Due to the pandemic, organizations that run these types of operations have a very challenging time finding sufficient staffing for these facilities. Mr. Perry asked Ms. Mueller if there were significant safeguards in place like direct wiring to the Sherriff's Office or a panic button, adding that leaving a single staff person on site because staff called in sick is a recipe for a disaster. Ms. Mueller replied that this mobile home is owned by the county. They do not have anyone managing it and there is no staffing. The occupants have electronic monitoring through the Department of Human Services and the Sherriff passes by throughout the day. There have been no issues in regards to the existing occupant. The county owns the facility and they run it, but the state manages the electronic monitoring and the state has direct links into all of the neighboring institutions that would be providing coverage for this. She said that more telling is the fact that they have had no issues with the occupant currently there. Mr. Perry thanked Ms. Mueller for the information, adding that when the commission was approached two years ago, the county clearly said that they would be contracting with a provider Plan Commission Minutes November 3, 2020 to do the monitoring and potential staffing. He said that the information Ms. Mueller provided is a little different from what was provided previously. Ms. Propp closed the public hearing and asked if the applicant wanted to make any closing statements. There were no closing statements from the applicant. Motion by Ford to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Condition: The residence is limited to maximum of two (2) occupants. Seconded by Davey. Ms. Propp asked if there was any discussion on the motion. There was no discussion on the motion. Motion carried 9-0. II. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RESIDENTIAL GROUP DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT THE 2600 BLOCK OF WITZEL AVENUE (THE WIT DEVELOPMENT) Site Inspections Report: Ms. Davey and Mr. Mitchell reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The applicant requests approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a Group Development consisting of twelve two-family structures. Mr. Wiley presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in this area. The petitioner seeks to develop the site with twelve two- story multi -family buildings each including twelve living units, for a total of 144 two -bedroom units. The site will also include four detached garage buildings and surface parking. The center of the site will include a large retention pond, clubhouse, and green space. The orientation of the multi -family buildings around the perimeter of the site is intended to allow for efficient wayfinding and site circulation. The site would include three refuse enclosures each with three 8- yard dumpsters for tenant use. The conditional use permit process allows such group developments of three or more principal buildings on a subject parcel. He said that staff would recommend approval as long as the petitioner is willing to meet the conditions listed previously. Plan Commission Minutes November 3, 2020 Mr. Lyons stated that they need to meet MR-12 based zoning requirements as this is not a planned development. The CUP today is specifically related to the group development, meaning more than three buildings on a single parcel, and whether it makes sense to allow this as a group development with three or more structures. Ms. Propp opened technical questions to staff. There were no technical questions on this item. Ms. Propp opened up the public hearing and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. Mr. Steven Moorehead thanked the commission for their support and stated that he is here to answer any questions they have. Mr. Perry stated that he is hoping that, as another large development, the developer takes accessibility needs into consideration and designs a few of the units to address those needs. Mr. Moorehead replied that they have taken accessibility into consideration and they will be designing per ADA requirements. Mr. Mitchell thanked Mr. Moorhead for his time and for his willingness to answer some questions prior to the meeting. He understands the clarification Mr. Lyons provided about what we are specifically voting on, but part of this role involves reviewing the City's process in addition to the proposed project. The proposed project looks great and he is really excited for that particular plot to be developed because the City has identified higher -quality housing as a gap as well. The questions he has are to look at the role and function of the City in getting a better idea of how a project goes about either including or not including accessibility features. He said that Mr. Moorhead indicated prior to the meeting that 33% of the building is on first floor. Mr. Mitchell asked if that is a no -step entry or if there are step entries for all of the units. Mr. Moorehead replied that it is no -step entry. Mr. Mitchell asked if the first floor units are zero step entry. Mr. Moorhead replied affirmatively. Mr. Mitchell asked if there were other intentional features that were put in to accommodate the needs of individuals that may have disabilities, not necessarily individuals who use wheelchairs, but features for individuals with visual and hearing impairments, for example. Mr. Moorhead replied that at this time it is all by code. They will take those things into account once they begin the process of building the first building. They are doing this in stages and all he can say is that they are doing it by code. He said they want to make the project accessible as best as they can. Plan Commission Minutes November 3, 2020 Mr. Mitchell asked if city staff worked with them beyond providing what code requires and specifically about the incorporation of accessibility features into the project. Mr. Moorhead replied that they talked to staff specifically around ADA requirements. Staff has been very open and worked with us extremely well at answering our questions, but the answer to Mr. Mitchell's question is no. Mr. Mitchell asked if they were provided with specific information encouraging them to incorporate accessibility features, provided with best practice ideas on how to make units more accessible, any financial incentive packages, or anything related to encouraging them to incorporate accessibility features. Mr. Moorhead replied that it really falls to the architectural group that has put in their judgment on design features like extra wide hallways, wider than standard doors, and larger bathrooms. They put our best means and methods forward every time and they do not look to the City for that type of recommendation. He said that in their mind, that is not the City's job. Mr. Lyons stated that after the last meeting, staff did reach out to them to ask if they would like to have any additional conversations about accessibility options and City programs. Mr. Mitchell thanked the applicant. James Rabe, 176 Barton Road, stated that he is concerned about the water back up when they're digging the drainage from all the water that comes down Barton Rd. He said that water gets pretty high running through here and he wants to make sure that it doesn't back up on his property. Mr. Lyons replied that it will have to meet full city drainage requirements. Similar to any other commercial development, they must retain and hold all water on their own site. They cannot drain the development property onto a neighbor. They have to collect and convey all their own water. He said they will have to have all final drainage plans approved by the city prior to construction taking place. Mr. Rabe replied that there is a lot of water that comes through during heavier rains that is supposed to go through that field, but now it will probably be backed up. Ms. Propp asked if the property must retain its own water during construction as well. Mr. Lyons said he does not want to speak for the exact requirements of the ordinance, but they have to have drainage measures in place during construction for run off and things like that. Mr. Gierach stated that they need to maintain the water on their site during construction and if there is water that flows through that, they need to find a way to deal with that. He does not have construction plans in front of him and nothing has been approved at this point. Post -construction they are required to maintain drainage whether it is through the site or on the site and then Plan Commission Minutes November 3, 2020 anything on -site is required to drain to the right of way, waters of the state, or any obtained easements. Mr. Rabe stated that the last time it rained, they put a silk fence up and he had to cut a hole in the silk fence to get the water to drain through from Barton Road because it was backing up. Mr. Moorhead replied that they would take a closer look at how the water drains through Barton Road to ensure they are able to safely convey the water through the subject site. He told the applicant they would keep a very close eye on it. Mr. Rabe replied that he hoped so and asked who he should contact if there is a problem. Mr. Moorhead replied that he should contact him and provided his phone number for Mr. Rabe. Ms. Propp thanked Mr. Rabe for his comment. Mr. Lyons stated that if there are issues after construction starts, Mr. Rabe can contact both Planning and Public Works. He said that nothing can really take place up there until the plans are reviewed and approved by Public Works. Mr. Mitchell asked if this was a concern of water flowing from someone else's property from around Barton Rd on to the project that is being proposed and not the other way around. Mr. Gierach replied that is how he understands it. The applicant is still required to maintain drainage that is coming through the site. They cannot block it off to flood out neighboring properties and they cannot drain from their subject site on neighboring properties. If there truly is water flowing through the site, they will have to maintain that as well. He said that they will look at that with them and how it affects their site. Ms. Propp closed the public hearing and asked if the applicant wanted to make any closing statements. Mr. Moorhead thanked the commission for their time. Motion by Mitchell to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Conditions: Petitioner to submit code compliant fencing details and install a code compliant 6' tall solid (at least 90% opaque) fence along the west property line. Petitioner shall submit a revised landscaping plan and schedule with code -compliant species and code -compliant landscaping point totals for Department of Community Development review as part of the Site Plan Review Process. Plan Commission Minutes November 3, 2020 3. Petitioner shall submit a revised, code -compliant photometric plan, light fixture mounting information, and light fixture details to staff for Department of Community Development review as part of the Site Plan Review Process. 4. Petitioner to submit detached garage elevations and dumpster enclosure elevations and details to staff for Department of Community Development review as part of the Site Plan Review Process. Seconded by Kiefer. Ms. Propp asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Mr. Mitchell stated that he knows there are a number of apartments directly by this and there may already be a good integration of affordable housing, but he just wants to be clear when we talk about incorporating affordable housing so we don't have islands of well-to-do and islands of not so well-to-do. We might be talking about somebody who works for the school district as the receptionist or working one-on-one with kids making $25,000 a year as a single parent. That person may benefit equally well from such a luxury development or the amenities. There are different strategies that can be incorporated. It may not be the best fit for this project, but he did want to note that he is excited to see if there are actual plans in place with the housing study to make sure we do not have a segregation of wealth without the incorporation of affordable housing for working class, lesser well-off folks. Motion carried 9-0. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 4:44 pm. (Stengel/Marshall) Respectfully Submitted, Mark Lyons Planning Services Manager Plan Commission Minutes November 3, 2020