Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES November 1, 2011 PRESENT: David Borsuk, Ed Bowen, Jeffrey Thoms, Thomas Fojtik, John Hinz, Steve Cummings, Dennis McHugh, Donna Lohry EXCUSED: Kathleen Propp, Robert Vajgrt, Karl Nollenberger STAFF: Darryn Burich, Director of Planning Services; Jeffrey Nau, Associate Planner; David Patek, Director of Public Works; 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 October 18, 2011 were approved as presented. (Thoms/Hinz) I. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE INSTALLATION OF ADDITIONAL TELECOMMUNICATION/CELLULAR ANTENNAE ON THE ROOFTOP OF MAINVIEW APARTMENTS AT 522-530 NORTH MAIN STREET US Cellular is requesting Conditional Use Permit approval to allow placement of three (3) new telecommunication/cellular antennae on the rooftop of the building known as Mainview Apartments (formerly the Raulf Hotel) at 530 North Main Street, to increase signal speed and capacity of cellular communication devices. This item was laid over from the October 4, 2011 meeting to provide the applicant time to develop a rooftop/wall mechanical inventory, telecommunication equipment stealth plan and installation timeline. Mr. Burich stated that staff had attempted to meet with the property owner and applicant to review the items listed above however the owner/applicant was unable to attend and requested that the item be laid over again for an additional month. It would be presented again to the Commission at the first meeting in December. Motion by Hinz to lay over the conditional use permit to allow the installation of additional telecommunication/cellular antennae on the rooftop of Mainview Apartments at 522-530 N. Main Street until the first meeting in December. Seconded by McHugh. Motion carried 7-0. II. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO PERMIT A CHURCH WITH ACCESSORY PARSONAGE AND RELIGIOUS EDUCATION CENTER AT 621 EVANS STREET, 820 AND 824 EAST PARKWAY AVENUE This is a request for a conditional use permit (CUP) for the re-establishment of a worship center/church and accessory uses at 824 East Parkway Avenue, 820 East Parkway Avenue, and 621 Evans Street. Mr. Nau presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the current land use and zoning classifications in said area. He reviewed the history of the site and stated that the educational center and parsonage on site would be accessory uses to the proposed re-establishment of __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 1 November 1, 2011 the church. The church structure is a historical building and he reviewed photos of the structure. The recommended hours of operation for the educational center were 8 am through 10 pm and he reviewed the conditions recommended for this request. He also reviewed two emails from adjacent property owners who were unable to attend the meeting. One was from Bill Parkin, 622 Bowen Street, who was requesting privacy screening along the property line between his home and the parking lot and the other was from Virginia Jungwirth, 810 E. Parkway Avenue, who had concerns with the children current living at the parsonage home and any outside activities that the church was proposing. Mr. Nau indicated that the church did not request any site improvements for outside activities in their application. Mr. McHugh questioned if the school use should require a separate conditional use permit. Mr. Burich responded that the proposed school use is not a public school but is an accessory use related to the church function therefore only one conditional use permit is required. Mr. McHugh then inquired if previous uses of this nature only required one conditional use permit. Mr. Burich replied that public schools require a separate conditional use permit and at times, the school use in connection to the church was established after the original use received approval and in that case required an amendment to the conditional use permit. In this case, since the request was presented for the church and accessory structure use together, there was no need to require two separate conditional use permits. Mr. Cummings stated that the educational building was used as a Sunday school years ago when the church was previously still operating. Mr. Thoms inquired if the number of parking stalls meets code requirements and if the recommended hours of operation were for the educational center only. Mr. Burich responded that the parking lot was an existing legal nonconforming lot and if stalls were not adequate, on street parking may be utilized. The hours of operation were meant to address activities other than church services which are consistent with the requirements placed on the request for the previously approved mosque. Mr. Thoms then questioned if the educational center’s limited hours of operation were consistent with the hours approved for the current use on site of the Kornerstone Recovery Club. Mr. Burich responded affirmatively. Mr. Thoms also inquired about the screening suggested by the neighbor and if it could be included and if it was legally required. Mr. Burich indicated that this was an existing structure and the site was not changing therefore there were no requirements in place for screening as the use of the parking lot was not changing. Mr. Hinz questioned if there was adequate room for screening as it appeared there was limited space in this area. Mr. Burich replied that with the limited area, he was not sure if there was sufficient space to add privacy screening between the lots. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 2 November 1, 2011 Mr. Cummings inquired what the plans were for the parsonage and if there were any major alterations planned for the church as the structures are in need of exterior maintenance. Mr. Burich responded that the application did not indicate what repairs were planned for the structures but if conditions exist that are code violations; correction notices could be issued to address the situation. Mr. Borsuk questioned if the current conditional use permit for this property had expired if the site had been vacant for more than a year. Mr. Burich replied that the CUP had not expired as the educational building was still being used although the church structure may not be in use at this time. Ms. Lohry arrived at 4:15 pm. Robert Langlitz, representing Jericho Road Ministries, Inc., 429 N. Sawyer Street, discussed some of the maintenance plans to be completed and estimated that about $50,000 would be invested in site improvements to the structures however they were not planning on changing the look of the buildings. Mr. Thoms inquired if the renovations were presented to the Landmarks Commission. Mr. Langlitz responded that they had not reviewed the renovations with the Commission however they were not proposing to alter the structures. The church would become a worship center again with the educational building being utilized for Sunday school and after school activities for children. Bible studies and religious training would also be part of the use which would be going back to the original use of the site. Mr. Fojtik questioned if the privacy fencing suggested by the adjacent property owner was possible. Mr. Langlitz replied that he was not sure if there was adequate space available for the screening feature but they wanted to be good neighbors and was willing to look into it. th Mr. McHugh stated that he heard that there were plans to establish a kindergarten through 10 grade school on the site. Mr. Langlitz responded that this was not the case and the educational center was to be used for Sunday school and other religious training only. Sarah Anderson, 627 Evans Street, stated that she was in favor of the re-establishment of a church on the site but was questioning who would be occupying it. She voiced her concerns with it being rented out to other entities as the building was in need of substantial repairs which the previous owner was not capable of funding and she was seeking assurance that the necessary maintenance to the structures would be done. She also had concerns with no on street parking being available on Bowen Street or Parkway Avenue leaving Evans Street as the only available street to utilize for parking as the number of members exceeded the parking stalls in the lot. Mr. Burich indicated that the structures cannot be rented out to community organizations without the conditional use permit coming back for approval of an amendment as the original proposal does not include that use. The nonconforming parking lot currently exists on the site and on street parking can __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 3 November 1, 2011 be utilized during standard church services which are common practice with most churches in older neighborhoods of the city. Ms. Anderson stated that she had concerns with the site converting space to establish a homeless shelter or low income housing. Mr. Burich responded that this use could not be established without first amending the conditional use permit as those are not uses indicated in the application. Marlin Harris, 820 E. Parkway Avenue, stated that the no parking restrictions on Parkway Avenue have been removed so on street parking would be allowed and maintenance work has been lined up for painting and other renovations with volunteers completing the work. Motion by Borsuk to approve a conditional use permit to permit a church with accessory parsonage and religious education center at 621 Evans Street, 820 and 824 E. Parkway Avenue as requestedwith the following conditions: 1.Hours of operation for the education center use are limited to between 8 am and 10 pm. 2. The separate tax parcels are to be combined in one tax parcel for the entire development. Seconded by Bowen. Motion carried 8-0. III. PUBLIC HEARING: 2012 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND 2012 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM ACTION PLAN BUDGET Staff requests review and acceptance of the 2012 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and 2012 Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) Action Plan budget. The purpose of this review is for the Plan Commission to make a determination of consistency of the proposed programs and activities in the 2012 CIP and 2012 CDBG Action Plan budget with the City’s Comprehensive Plan, official maps, or other planned activities. Mr. Burich presented the item and reiterated that the Plan Commission’s responsibility was to consider the budget in relation to the Comprehensive Plan and not discuss items on an individual basis, outside of the relation to the Comprehensive Plan, as these decisions were made by the Common Council. David Patek, Director of Public Works, stated that the CIP is prepared by the City Manager, and is broken down into ten sections as follows: street construction/improvements, storm sewer construction, sanitary sewer construction, water main projects, sidewalks, traffic improvements, park improvements, major equipment replacement, property improvements, and tax increment district projects. Mr. Patek did a brief overview of each section of the CIP and some of the projects included in said sections. Mr. McHugh commented that there was an item on page 18 for $200,000 for playground equipment at one of the parks and he questioned if that was a misprint. Mr. Patek indicated that the figure was correct. Mr. Burich once again stated that the issue was to determine if the CIP was consistent with the th Comprehensive Plan such as the undergrounding of utilities on 9 Avenue and the inclusion of __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 4 November 1, 2011 anticipated bike route features on various streets being improved. The approval of individual items not related to the Comprehensive Plan is addressed by the Common Council members. Mr. Borsuk commented that he felt this would be an appropriate time to discuss the City’s central garage as he did not believe expanding or reconstructing it in its current location was good planning. Mr. Burich responded that the recommended land use in the Comprehensive Plan for this area was institutional use which would be appropriate for the central garage. Mr. Borsuk stated that it may be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan but questioned whether this was a proper location for this type of use. Mr. Patek replied that they were currently completing an analysis of space needs to determine if adequate space was available at this location and the consultant hired to complete the study is still reviewing it. Mr. Borsuk commented that the item should be removed from the CIP. Mr. Patek responded that the project is being phased in and will be discussed with the Common Council by year end. Depending on the decision made by the Council on how to proceed on the project, the design phase would follow. The $3 million was to cover costs incurred during this process as well as to continue operations at the site as this project would need to be sequenced as far as construction as the site would be required to continue to operate. The whole project is anticipated to require about three years to complete. Mr. Borsuk stated that he still did not feel this was good planning. Mr. Burich commented that the renovation of the central garage is not inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Lohry questioned if the repaving projects were considering the new pervious surfaces available instead of standard concrete or asphalt surfacing. Mr. Patek responded that the pumping station constructed in Menominee Park was completed with some of these types of surfacing and it was utilized when possible however the soil makeup in the city is not appropriate for this type of pavement on street reconstruction as it would not function properly. Mr. McHugh again questioned the replacement of the central garage being consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Burich reiterated that the land use in this area is consistent with the plan as is the zoning of the area. Mr. Thoms inquired about the costs of the street repairs and the decision to either just repave the surface or completely reconstruct the utilities as well. Mr. Patek replied that the decisions are dependent on the condition of the street overall. Mr. Thoms questioned the land acquisition relating to the detention basin. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 5 November 1, 2011 Mr. Patek responded that the Sawyer Creek project was underway and the Campbell Creek basin was th to service the area by West 9 Avenue and Washburn Street. Mr. Thoms also commented on the central garage and whether this was the highest and best use of the land and appropriate for this area. He felt the Commission should be able to look at the process and comment on the impact of expanding the size of the garage at this site. Mr. Borsuk stated that it was discussed when the school board maintenance building that was constructed in this area was reviewed. Mr. Bowen stated that the appropriateness of the site should not be a discussion item at this time. It is his understanding that the $3 million would be allocated if a site was determined and the dollars allocated were a placeholder for the anticipated expense for development. He also questioned if the $3.8 million allocated to the Armory detention basin was for construction purposes only and the land acquisition had been completed. Mr. Patek responded affirmatively. Mr. Bowen then questioned if the street construction projects that included anticipated bike routes would be utilizing the existing right-of-way to make the routes self-contained or if additional right-of- way would have to be purchased. Mr. Patek replied that the size of the existing right-of-way would remain the same. Mr. Burich commented that the recent review of the Menominee Park restroom construction that came before Plan Commission for approval was no different than the process for the central garage. The current area is zoned industrial and the land use is permitted for that use. Mr. Patek added that the central garage is centrally located in the city and many other municipal buildings are located in the same area. It is a good buffer between the wastewater treatment plant and the University’s biodigester plant recently constructed. Ms. Lohry inquired if more effort would be made to beautify the area around the central garage if it is determined to remain at this location. Mr. Patek responded that the City’s intent would be to add additional vegetation and green space to the area to improve its appearance. Mr. McHugh questioned if any of the funds allocated for the central garage was to purchase land from UW-O for the garage expansion. Mr. Patek replied that the $3 million allocated for this project was for the building development only. Mr. Burich conducted the presentation of the 2012 Community Development Block Grant Program Action Plan for the period of May 2012 through April 2013, which anticipates the 2012 budgeting for this program. Mr. Burich explained that 70% of the federal funds received are required to be spent on programs which meet the national objectives of this funding which are to benefit low to moderate income persons, (LMI), aide in slum/blighted removal and prevention, and urgent need assistance such as disasters. The funding for 2012 is anticipated to be $775,000 and is budgeted as follows: __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 6 November 1, 2011 Central City Development and Community Facilities 0 Housing & Neighborhood Development 581,250 Public Services 116,250 Administration and Planning 77,500 All programs require heavy reporting to HUD accounting for program expenditures and the Action Plan also requires Common Council approval. Mr. Burich reviewed photos of the past year’s projects and the various agencies that received funding under the Public Services category and what programs these funds are utilized to support. A public nd hearing will be held on November 2 at the Seniors Center as well as a Common Council workshop on thnd November 16, and final Council review on November 22. Mr. Bowen commented that he felt the rehabilitation funds were being utilized correctly however he would like to see more money available for Central City Redevelopment projects. Mr. Burich responded that there were some funds left from previous years that could be utilized if necessary and the rehabilitation program funds eventually come back to the city for re-use when the property is sold. The city is doing its best to fund as many projects as possible but with the reduction of federal funding for this program, allocations have to be reduced to balance with funding received. Mr. Thoms questioned if the reduction in administrative costs from the CDBG funds would be reallocated to the city budget. Mr. Burich replied that some funds would come from the city budget and some would come out of TIF district funding. Mr. McHugh inquired if any money would be allocated to the low income housing development on the riverfront. Mr. Burich responded negatively. Mr. Fojtik opened the public hearing for comment. Several citizens spoke regarding their concerns on the street reconstruction projects. Mr. Fojtik informed them that the Plan Commission was not the appropriate body to discuss these concerns with as their overall approach was to determine the CIP’s consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and not making individual budget decisions or getting into the details of a street reconstruction project. Mr. Burich added that anyone with concerns relating to specific street reconstruction projects should discuss the matter with the Common Council or the Department of Public Works or at the neighborhood hearing. Mr. Patek stated that the correspondence that was sent out stated that there would be a neighborhood nd meeting on November 2 at the Seniors Center to discuss these issues. As there were no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Bowen suggested that next year the neighborhood meeting should be held prior to the review by the Plan Commission as there seemed to be some confusion as to the purpose of today’s meeting. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 7 November 1, 2011 Mr. Patek indicated that the process would be adjusted accordingly next year. Motion by Borsuk to approve the 2012 Capital Improvement Program and 2012 Community Development Block Grant Program Action Plan budget as requested. Seconded by Cummings. Mr. Borsuk stated that he would support the request however he did feel the issues regarding the central garage were confusing and there seemed to be some disagreement as to the appropriateness of the land use in this area. Mr. Thoms also commented that he would support it and although the land use may be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, he was not sure if it’s the best and highest use of the property. Mr. McHugh stated that he would not support this request as he felt the $200,000 for playground equipment and the funds for new carpeting for the library were not appropriate. He felt that City Hall was not in tune with the citizens of the community. Motion carried 7-1. (Ayes-Borsuk/Bowen/Thoms/Fojtik/Hinz/Cummings/Lohry. Nays- McHugh) There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 5:20 pm. (Hinz/Bowen) Respectfully submitted, Darryn Burich Director of Planning Services __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 8 November 1, 2011