Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Plan Commission Minutes 1 July 17, 2007 PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 17, 2007 PRESENT: David Borsuk, Ed Bowen, Thomas Fojtik, Paul Esslinger, Kathleen Propp, Cathy Scherer, Jon Dell’Antonia EXCUSED: Meredith Scheuermann, Paul Lowry, Jeff Thorkildsen, John Weinsheim STAFF: Darryn Burich, Director of Planning Services; David Buck, Principal Planner; Deborah Foland, Recording Secretary Chairperson Dell’Antonia called the meeting to order at 4:01 pm. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. Mr. Dell’Antonia addressed the board regarding the number of votes required to pass an item reviewed by the Plan Commission which arose at the last meeting. Mr. Dell’Antonia referred to an email he received from City Attorney Warren Kraft which in effect stated that abstaining from voting is essentially like not being present, however, a majority of the board is not required to approve an item as long as a quorum is present and some commissioners are abstaining from voting. An exception would be the approval of such items as the “Smart Growth” master plan or the Comprehensive Plan which would require a majority of the board voting affirmative for approval. The other item in question was in regard to what constitutes a conflict of interest and if a commissioner should abstain from voting on an item if one exists even though the Plan Commission is an advisory board only. Mr. Dell’Antonia stated that Mr. Kraft responded that if a commissioner feels he/she has a conflict of interest, he/she should abstain from voting on the item. I. EXTRATERRITORIAL LAND DIVISION/CERTIFIED SURVEY MAP AT 4508 KOLB ROAD IN THE TOWN OF VINLAND Extraterritorial two-lot land division/certified survey map at 4508 Kolb Road in the Town of Vinland for the purpose of creating one additional developable lot for residential purposes. The lots are sized as follows: Lot 1 81,400 square feet (1,869 acres) containing single family dwelling and garage. Lot 2 101,581 square feet (2,332 acres) undeveloped. Mr. Burich presented this item and explained that the County would be delaying their approval of this item until such a time that the City either amends the Comprehensive Plan map or approves a text amendment in regard to the rural preservation of this area. Ms. Scherer asked what is involved in amending the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Burich responded that as this has not been done in the past, he was not unsure as to the exact legal requirements involved and would let the Commission know at an upcoming meeting. Plan Commission Minutes 2 July 17, 2007 Michele Stahmann, 4508 Kolb Road, was present and asked if the board members had any questions. She stated that this item was discussed at a previous meeting and they would like to receive approval of their request so they could proceed with their plans. Mr. Borsuk commented that he voted to uphold the Comprehensive Plan at the previous meeting when this land division was discussed, and although he did not have a problem with supporting this request, the ramifications could be huge. He feels that its really going to affect how the community develops and its important to outline what the Comprehensive Plan is and any deviation from it could have a significant affect on future planning. Mr. Burich agreed and stated that if not done correctly, it could negatively impact us. The purpose of the text amendment would be to allow minor land divisions such as this one and the amendment would be presented to the board for approval at a future meeting. Mr. Dell’Antonia commented commented that maybe previously established uses in rural areas could be reviewed. Mr. Fojtik commented that there are always unknown circumstances that could arise and it is difficult to predict every situation. Motion by Scherer to move approval of the extraterritorial land division/CSM as requested. Seconded by Fojtik. Motion carried 7-0. II. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL FOR INSTALLATION OF TWO SIGNS AT BRIDGEVIEW OFFICE CENTRE The petitioner is requesting approval of the installation of two ground signs (one monument and one pylon) at two entrances to the Bridgeview Office Centre with front yard setbacks of 5 feet. The monument sign is approximately 13 feet 5 inches high and encompasses approximately 100 square feet per side. The pylon sign is approximately 20 feet high and encompasses approximately 100 square feet per side. The CUP/PD approval is required due to the proposed setback of 5 feet where 25 feet is required. Mr. Fojtik inquired how the Ohio Street reconstruction project would affect this request. He also asked if the size of the signs was acceptable. Mr. Burich responded that it should have no affect on this request as the Ohio Street project would not require any additional right-of-way in this area. He also stated that the ground signs proposed were within the City standards. Mr. Dell’Antonia asked if there could be a 12-foot setback for the signs rather than the 10-foot setback recommended by staff. Mr. Burich replied that after taking measurements on site, anything greater than a 10 foot setback would place the signs too close to the buildings. Mike Goudreau, 222 Ohio Street, stated that they purchased the entire center about a year ago and wanted to finish the development of it and was present to answer any questions the board may have. Plan Commission Minutes 3 July 17, 2007 Motion by Esslinger to move approval of the conditional use permit/development plan for the installation of two signs at Bridgeview Office Centre as requested with the following conditions: 1) Signs be setback 10 feet from the edge of the Ohio Street right-of-way property line. Seconded by Borsuk. Motion carried 7-0. III. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT FOR A MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT (LESNICK FARM) The applicant is requesting approval of an amendment to a previously issued conditional use permit/preliminary development plan that was reviewed by the Plan Commission on 10/3/06 and approved by the Common Council on 11/14/06 (Resolution 06-327 attached), for a mixed-use development that entails single-family lots, two-family lots, multi-family apartments, multi-family condominiums, senior and 55+ living, commercial areas, public right-of-way dedication, public park area and parkways. Mr. Burich stated that the Wisconsin Department of Transportation was an owner of adjacent property to the site and notified our office that they will be reconstructing the Stearns Drive intersection in the course of the next year and that their office would have to provide approval of the plat. Mr. Borsuk inquired where the reconstruction would be located. Mr. Burich responded that it would be the intersection of Highway 45 and County Trunk T. Mr. Borsuk commented on if any other concept had been explored for buffering between the commercial uses and single-family uses rather than the traditional one of placing multi-family uses in between. Mr. Buck replied that this topic was discussed with the developers and the concept of possibly mixing some of the two-families in on corner lots. The developers also discussed plans to use berms with vegetation to help buffer the commercial uses as well. Mr. Dell’Antonia asked if this request was approved, what exactly were we approving. Mr. Buck responded that the board would be approving an amendment to the planned development that was approved in 2006. At this point, approval is that the concept of the subdivision is acceptable. As development progresses, they will need to come back to the Commission for approval of each phase of development as well as approval of the plats and rezoning of the areas from A-1 to the appropriate zoning. Mr. Burich added that, due to the large scale of this development, the petitioners want some assurance and comfort that the developed plan is acceptable before they proceed with more detailed plans. Mr. Dell’Antonia stated that he was not comfortable with the single-family homes backing up to the 55+ living units. Ms. Propp inquired about how much parkland is required to be dedicated. Mr. Buck replied that based on the estimated number of units, it would be approximately 10 acres. Mr. Burich added that parkland dedication fees could be paid in lieu of the land dedication in the past, but due to a change in legislation, that option is no longer available. Plan Commission Minutes 4 July 17, 2007 Dave Krauser, Mau & Associates, representing the developer, stated that in addition to the parkland, they are proposing a walkway along the wetland area which will eventually hook up to the trail system to the south. In regards to the buffering, the multi-family units are placed in an area to reduce traffic within the subdivision. This style of development has been implemented in other areas previously and has been very successful. It allows for the transition from apartment living to single-family homes to 55+ living units so a person could make the necessary housing changes as they move up in life without leaving the subdivision. As far as the road in the northeast corner being extended through and the issues regarding the parkland, they are working with City staff to resolve these matters. They are planning on developing the southern area of the project first as the utility services are already available. Ms. Propp asked if the stormwater management could be part of the proposed lakes in the plan. Mr. Krauser replied that they were working with City staff on this concept. Stormwater detention ponds are not as clean as decorative ponds, but they are considering filtering systems that may allow this. Mr. Bowen commented that he liked the amended plan much better than the original concept but he was concerned with the loss of over 100 owner-occupied units in the development. He would like to see more single-family and less multi-family or duplex units with more emphasis on ownership. Mr. Borsuk agreed and stated that he would like these points to be remembered when the next phases come through the Commission for approval. We need to be more sensitive towards the balance of owner and rental units. Ms. Propp inquired about the density of the condo unit area. Would this be zoned R-4. Mr. Burich replied that the zoning would probably be R-3. Mr. Buck added that we had discussed more of a cluster design, but this is a conceptual plan only and may be adjusted. The 55+ living area may be adjusted as well. Ms. Propp asked about the parkland area to be dedicated. She stated that she would like to see the maximum size allowable. She also commented about the trail that was proposed and felt that it was an important issue for the community. Mr. Burich replied that the developer is aware of the City’s concerns with these issues and they would be working with the Parks Department to resolve them. Motion by Scherer to approve the CUP/PD modification for a mixed-use development as requested with the following conditions: 1) All phases of development shall require additional CUP/PD reviews, zone changes, and plat approvals, as necessary. 2) Inclusion of a public roadway running adjacent to the proposed park. 3) Determination of usability and acceptance of proposed park/parkway by the City Parks Department. 4) Provide a second vehicular access to the area designated as 55+ living. Seconded by Borsuk. Motion carried 7-0. Plan Commission Minutes 5 July 17, 2007 IV. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR THE RE-ESTABLISHMENT OF AN AUTOMOBILE SALES USE AT 640 NORTH MAIN STREET The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to re-establish an automobile sales use on an improved central city lot. Mr. Borsuk asked if the addition of the computer/gaming business to this site would change the parking requirements. Mr. Buck responded that since it is located in a C-3 zoning district that there was no requirement for the number of parking stalls. Mr. Dell’Antonia asked if this item were denied, would the entire business operation have to go. Mr. Buck replied that this request was only for the automobile sales use on the site. Mr. Bowen inquired if this request was to re-establish this use on the site since the prior CUP had expired. Mr. Buck responded yes. Mr. Bowen also asked if the submittal was not made appropriately since it was hard to determine what was with the current application and what applied to the previous submission. submission. Mr. Buck responded that a lot of the review was done on assumption since the applicant did not submit a current site plan or narrative as required with his conditional use permit application. Ms. Scherer asked if the CUP application was the only document submitted. Mr. Buck replied that was correct. Andrei Biesinger, 640 North Main Street, commented that the computer store had closed last month. He further commented that he had spoke with David Buck regarding his application and told him there was no change since his previous submittal. The site plan did include a parking area on a parcel to the north, but he could not work out a deal to purchase this site so it was not part of this application. He stated that he put the debris in a fenced area behind the store and since they do service work on vehicles, there are times that there are inoperable cars parked in the lot, but that he hasn’t had any correction notices recently. He has fired all his old employees and taken on a new partner who is better at maintaining the appearance of the lot. He stated that he did not take care of eliminating the curb cut noted as a condition in his previously approved CUP, but he needed the space to maneuver cars into the service bays. Since the beginning of the year, he did get the parking stalls marked as requested and the site looks much better than it did. Even if the CUP is not approved, cars would still be parked there since the service work would still continue to exist on the site. He stated that he has not had a violation in seven months but he currently has no dealership license since his CUP expired. He commented that the minutes from the meeting approving his initial CUP said that staff would review the use after two years and that it did not say that he was required to do anything. Mr. Dell’Antonia asked where the automobiles for sale are parked on the site. Mr. Biesinger displayed on the site plan where the sales stalls existed. He reiterated that the operation is run differently than in the past. The computer store vacating helped the situation and he feels he has no Plan Commission Minutes 6 July 17, 2007 negative impact on neighboring properties. The car lot was merely extra income for him and he did not submit the required narrative and site plan with this application since nothing changed. Ms. Propp commented that Mr. Biesinger stated that he had not had any correction notices in seven months, yet the staff explained that no correction notices were issued in 2006 for lack of staffing in the zoning administrator position and the staff report shows one was issued on 5/24/07 for unlicensed/inoperable vehicles and operating with an expired CUP. Mr. Biesinger stated that this activity was allowable when he had a dealership there and the correction notice was due to the loss of his CUP for this site. Mr. Dell’Antonia asked if boats or recreational vehicles were sold on this lot. Mr. Biesinger replied no but when he does have any motorcycles or four-wheelers, that they are stored in the service bay area and occasionally he works on his personal boat on site. Mr. Dell’Antonia commented that they could consider adding that no boats or recreational vehicles were allowed on site as a condition to this request. Mr. Burich commented that the board could require any unlicensed vehicles be stored behind the building in the fenced area. Mr. Buck added that, typically at most dealerships, vehicles for sale have a DOT sticker and dealer plate displayed in the window and a price on the windshield. Mr. Burich added that unlicensed or inoperable vehicles are not normally displayed in front of the dealership where they impact street traffic. Mr. Dell’Antonia asked how vehicles for sale are displayed in the lot. Mr. Biesinger stated that it depends on whether it is a vehicle which they purchased, in which case there would not be a license plate on it unless it was being taken for a test drive, or if it is a vehicle they are selling on consignment, in which case it would have the owner’s license plate on it. Mr. Burich asked what the status was of the vehicles photographed on 5/24/07 with the the price tags displayed on the windshields. Mr. Biesinger replied that since the expiration of his CUP, he was no longer allowed to sell vehicles on this lot and they were cars that were from his other dealership on 1203 South Main Street. Mr. Burich inquired as to what had been done to remedy the condition on his original CUP for the elimination of the third curb cut. Mr. Biesinger responded that he could not use the service bays if the curb cut was eliminated since they need the room to back vehicles into that area. He commented that he installed parking curb stops to remedy the situation instead. He discussed this with his attorney and Matt Tucker, previous City Zoning Administrator. Mr. Buck stated that the City received a letter from Mr. Biesinger’s attorney stating his intention to install these but there was no indication that the City would approve of this. Mr. Borsuk asked about the condition that the lots be joined as they existed as two separate parcels when the original CUP was approved. Plan Commission Minutes 7 July 17, 2007 Mr. Biesinger replied that he purchased them that way and that the CUP was only for the lot that had the parking stalls on it. Ms. Scherer brought up the fact that one of the parcels was purchased under land contract and therefore could not be combined with the other parcel. Mr. Buck commented that the CUP applies to the entire site as it is functioning as one site. Mr. Borsuk asked if the land was still under land contract. Mr. Biesinger replied that it was as he had a ten-year contract. Ms. Propp commented that on the photographs taken recently there appears to be two vehicles for sale on the lot and that until this situation is resolved that no vehicles should be sold there. Mr. Biesinger claimed that the one vehicle was being sold on consignment and the other was being sold with the paperwork referencing his car lot on South Main Street. Ms. Propp replied that it was her understanding that no vehicles were to be sold from that lot until this matter was resolved. Mr. Borsuk asked Mr. Biesinger if he had a Wisconsin dealership license for this location. Mr. Biesinger replied that he did not since the City has not renewed his CUP for this location he is unable to obtain a Wisconsin dealership license for this site. Mr. Borsuk commented that in essence then that Mr. Biesinger was operating not only in violation of City codes but in violation of State codes as well. Mr. Biesinger acknowledged that but stated that if the City would approve the CUP that he could once again obtain a state dealership license for this site. Mr. Borsuk stated that he did not support this request initially and would not support the re-issue of it either. He did not feel that after two years of history of operation that this use was harmonious with the Near East Neighborhood redevelopment area behind it or the N. Main Street corridor. Mr. Dell’Antonia stated that even if the CUP is not reissued, it probably would not change the appearance of the site. Mr. Borsuk commented that the additional use does increase the intensity though. Mr. Fojtik stated although the site may have been improved recently that the history of operation on the site cannot be totally disregarded and if the request was to be approved, he would want to have a condition added that it be reviewed in 12 months. Ms. Propp stated that she did not feel comfortable with the history of operation on the site in the past two years and would not be supporting the approval of this request. Mr. Biesinger admits that he should not be selling cars from this site and he obviously is doing so. Plan Commission Minutes 8 July 17, 2007 Ms. Scherer agreed and commented that the correction notice was issued on 5/24/07 and he did not complete his application until 6/20/07 for the renewal of the CUP. She further stated that the City had spent considerable time monitoring the site and it appears with little success. Motion by Borsuk to deny the request for a conditional use permit for the re-establishment of an automobile sales use as requested. Seconded by Propp. Mr. Esslinger brought up the point that technically he cannot sell vehicles on the lot, but he was wondering if the situation was that the vehicles are sold on the property but the associated paperwork for the sale is on his South Main site. Mr. Dell’Antonia stated that appears to be what is happening right now. Mr. Burich responded that from a zoning standpoint if a vehicle is being offered for sale on a site it has to be approved by the City regardless of what the State’s requirement are for sale. Mr. Dell’Antonia inquired about the vehicle that Mr. Biesinger claimed was for sale on consignment or that it was there for service. Mr. Burich replied that it then should not be displayed with a “for sale” sign on it or it should be parked in the service bay or a non-visible area. Mr. Esslinger asked to have what was being voted on clarified. Mr. Dell’Antonia stated that the motion on the floor was to deny the application for a CUP for auto sales on this site. A yes vote would be to deny the request and a no vote would be to approve it. Mr. Esslinger stated that he thought it would be more appropriate to approve the request for a 12-month period. Mr. Dell’Antonia asked if the board wanted to hear any additional comments from the petitioner at this time. The board members agreed that they did not wish to entertain any further comments on the matter. Motion carried 6-1. Ayes-Borsuk/Bowen/Fojtik/Propp/Scherer/Dell’Antonia. Nays-Esslinger V. PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT TO ZONING CODE CHAPTER 30/ARTICLE XII: OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING FACILITIES Mr. Burich Burich commented that before discussion begins on this item, he would like to know if the board wanted to proceed or lay this item over until the next Plan Commission meeting. Mr. Bowen stated that he would like to lay this item over until the August meeting. Mr. Esslinger asked if other people in the community had been in receipt of these proposed changes so they could look at it. Plan Commission Minutes 9 July 17, 2007 Mr. Burich replied that it was shared with local developers and it went before the Retail Development Committtee of the Chamber and Chamco. This proposed amendment has been being developed for a number of years now. Mr. Bowen added that the response to this amendment was overwhelmingly positive. Mr. Dell’Antonia commented that it should be much easier to understand. The board agreed to lay this item over to the next meeting. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 5:45 pm. Respectfully submitted, Darryn Burich Director of Planning Services