Minutes; Evansville Plan: September 6, 2005

Plan Commission
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, September 6, 2005, 6:00 P.M.
City Hall, 31 S. Madison Street, Evansville, WI

MINUTES

The meeting was called to order by Mayor Ringhand at 6:05 PM. Present were: Mayor Ringhand, Ald. Aikman, Ald. Hammann, Ms. Dickert, Messrs. Sauer, and Vrstal. Mr. Skinner was absent. Staff present: Tim Schwecke, City Planner; Bill Connors, City Administrator; and Jim Beilke, Clerk/Treasurer. Dave Wagner, Ehlers Associates, bond counselor. Alderperson Cothard and Sornson were present in the audience.

Approval of Agenda.
Mr. Connors requested to amend agenda item 7 (H) to delete “Motion to approve,” to substitute “Motion to recommend to Council the approval of.”

The agenda, as amended, was approved.

Approval of Minutes
Motion by Hammann, seconded by Sauer, to waive the reading of the August 1, 2005 Minutes and approve as printed. Motion carried.

Citizen Appearances Other Than Those Agenda Items Listed. None.

Unfinished Business.
In regards to the update on proposal to adopt architectural design standards, work is pending.

New Business.
Mr. Wagner discussed that Plan Commission Resolution #2005-01 amends the boundaries and Project Plan of the Tax Increment District No. 5. When reviewing the proposed resolution, the Commission should analyzes the whether the development expected would occur without the use of tax incremental financing, the economic benefits are sufficient to compensate for the cost of the improvements, and the benefits outweigh the anticipated tax increments. Additionally, the amended boundary will provide the City with a viable method of financing the cost of needed public improvements and other project costs within the area, thereby providing incentives and opportunities for appropriate private development, including new development and improvement of existing development.

Motion by Hammann, seconded by Aikman, to approve Plan Commission Resolution #2005-1 as drafted.

Motion by Hammann to remove Parcel No. 6-27-163.1 from the area to be added to TID No. 5 by the proposed enlargement. Motion failed for lack of second.

Mr. Vrstal questioned how many properties were added because they have plans for TIF financing. Mr. Wagner explained that approval of the amended boundaries and Project Plan does not approve providing assistance for any particular private development or redevelopment project, but all requests for financial assistance must be approved Council. Mr. Connors explained further that the added properties may have potential for development, but there are no specific plans as of today.

Motion carried. Mr. Vrstal and Ms. Dickert abstained.

A public hearing on Ordinance #2005-28, amending the Municipal Code relative to community living arrangements was opened at 6:59PM.

Mr. Schwecke explained that the existing zoning code is internally inconsistent in regards to where community living arrangements are allowed, and this amendment list allowable locations in one place in the code. No one else spoke.

The public hearing was closed at 7:05PM.

Motion by Hammann, seconded by Vrstal, to recommend to Council the approval of Ordinance #2005-28 as drafted. Motion carried.

A public hearing on Ordinance #2005-29, amending the Municipal Code relative to electronic message signs, was opened at 7:07 PM.

Maria Martinez, 443 S. First St., questioned what kind of signs would be permitted. Mr. Schwecke reviewed the parameters in with Commission. Betty Ahner, 20 S. First St., questioned number of signs that would be permitted. John Williams, 1 N. Madison St., from the Bank of Evansville, questioned the size of other signs in area and visibility from highway. Chris Eager, 120 Grove, questioned the number of signs and the appearance of the town entrance. Ann Steinlein, 242 E. Main St., questioned the size of electronic signs.

The public hearing was closed at 7:17 PM.

Motion by Hammann, seconded by Sauer, to recommend to Council the approval of Ordinance #2005-29 as drafted.

Ald. Hammann addressed the issues regarding the size of message, color of message, timing of messages, size and safety of signs. Mr. Schwecke modeled the ordinance after Madison incorporating these issues. Ald. Aikman questioned when the lights in the electronic message board would be on and off.

Motion by Hammann, seconded by Sauer, to amend the motion so that only monument signs would be permitted to contain electronic message areas. Mr. Vrstal questioned limiting only monument signs in this district (B-4). Motion carried.

The discussion turned to lighting in the area. Mr. Vrstal stated there are a lot of lights in this area, but they do not light up the area. Ald. Aikman would want to limit the lighting in this area.

Motion by Aikman, seconded by Hammann, to amend the motion requiring signs to be turned off between the hours 11:00PM to 5:00AM. On a roll call vote, motion failed, with Alderpersons Aikman and Hammann voting for and Ms. Dickert, Messrs. Sauer, Vrstal, and Mayor Ringhand voting against.

The original motion, as amended, carried.

The commissioners took up the issue of preexisting drive-up windows in the B-2 district.

A public hearing on Ordinance #2005-33, amending the Municipal Code relative to existing drive-through windows in the B-2 district, was opened at 7:47 PM.

Mr. Schwecke explained this ordinance would allow a conditional use for existing drive-up windows. Ald. Sornson stated this issue was before the Council and voted down. He questioned why this issue, which he is against, came back to Plan Commission. Richard Woolfe, 255 E. Main, is in favor of supporting businesses if the drive-up are safe. Ald. Cothard reiterated Ald. Sornson statement. Ald. Hammann pointed out the difference of this ordinance deals with existing drive-up, whereas, the ordinance before Council dealt with creation of new drive-up windows. Chris Eager, 120 Grove St., stated this drive-up window with a blind exit is a critical public safety issue, and it is not a hardship for a CPA firm to be without a drive-up window. John Morning, 7902 N. Cty. Tk. M, asked if a financial institution wants to go back in, will they be allow to build a drive-up window.

The public hearing was closed at 7:55 PM.

Motion by Hammann, seconded by Dickert, to recommend to Council the approval of Ordinance #2005-33 as drafted.

Ald. Aikman stated if another bank came back into the building, her opinion is this is clearly a safety issue, quoting Section 130-407, “the drive-through facility shall be designed so as to not impede or impair vehicular and pedestrian traffic movement, or exacerbate the potential for pedestrian/vehicular conflicts. In no instance shall a drive-through facility be permitted to operate which endangers the public safety, even if such land use has been permitted under the provisions of this article.” Her stand would not change, because this drive-up is in a blind intersection, which is not pedestrian friendly.

Mr. Williams from the Bank of Evansville asked if the Commission would close this exit. He stated that denying the drive-up window would not alleviate the problem because cars will always exit at this blind intersection.

On a roll call vote, the motion failed, with no one voting for and Alderpersons Hammann, Aikman, Ms. Dickert, Messrs. Sauer, Vrstal, and Mayor Ringhand voting against.

A public hearing on Ordinance #2005-34, amending the Municipal Code relative to placing a sandwich board sign directly in front of a business in the B-2 district or historic district was opened at 8:02 PM.

Mr. Connors stated when the Council tabled Ordinance #2005-20 on July 12, 2005, he was instructed to draft two new ordinances, which separated the two circumstances under which sandwich boards could be placed on public sidewalks. In an effort to help downtown businesses, he drafted three amendments to Ordinance #2005-20 for the Council August 9 meeting, because starting over with new ordinances would have delayed the process by one month. Only four of the six alderperson present voted in favor Ordinance #2005-20, as amended, ant the August 9 meeting. Unfortunately, neither City Attorney Mark Kopp nor Mr. Connors realized that the motion to adopt the ordinance did not pass, so everyone left the meeting thinking the ordinance had been adopted. Our Municipal Code provides that adoption of an ordinance requires an affirmative vote by a majority of the Council, which is five affirmative votes (out of eight alderpersons), not just a majority of those present and voting, which on August 9 was four votes (out six alderpersons present and voting). The vote was four in favor and two against. Ordinance #2005-34 and Ordinance #2005-35 separate the circumstances under which sandwich boards could be placed on public sidewalks. Maria Martinez, 443 S. First St., expressed the downtown businesses’ frustration with the past events and thanked the Commission for their time and effort. Mr. Eager is in favor of these ordinances. Ms. Decker asked if sandwich boards would need Historical Preservation Committee approval. Mr. Connors informed her that language is not in these ordinances. Ms. Ahner inquired about the requirements of the attractiveness of signs. Mr. Vrstal stated there is no language in our code regarding a sign’s appearance. Ms. Martinez stated a sign permit asks for what material and dimensions. Mr. Williams is in favor of these ordinances.

The public hearing closed at 8:12 PM.

Motion by Hammann, seconded by Aikman, to recommend to Council the approval of Ordinance #2005-34 as drafted.

Motion by Hammann, seconded by Aikman, to amend the motion so that the ordinance will say that sign applications in the Historical District shall go to Historical Preservation Committee for their review and comments. Motion carried.

The original motion, as amended, carried.

A public hearing on Ordinance #2005-35, amending the Municipal Code to allow sandwich boards to be placed in the B-2 district and historic district during street construction projects was opened at 8:25 PM.

Mr. Vrstal asked does this ordinance restrict sandwich boards only in historic district and central business district. Mr. Connors stated this ordinance pertains only to signs permitted in historic preservation district and the central business district.

The public hearing closed at 8:30 PM.

Motion by Hammann, seconded by Sauer, to recommend to Council the approval of Ordinance #2005-35 as drafted.

Motion by Hammann, seconded by Vrstal, to amend motion to apply this amendment to apply to all other zoning district in the City. Motion carried.

The original motion, as amended, carried.

The commissioners took up a proposed resolution designating the location where sandwich board signs may be placed on the public sidewalk during the 2005 USH 14 Reconstruction Project. The consensus was one sign per corner on a “first come, first served” basis each day.

Motion by Hammann, seconded by Aikman, to recommend to Council the approval of the final certified survey map for the Ace Hardware parcel. Motion carried.

Motion by Hammann, seconded by Sauer, to recommend to Council the approval of the final land divider’s agreement for Grand Orchard Estates subdivision.
As of this date, staff has not had adequate time to review the revised draft. Staff will review agreement for compliance before it goes to Council.

Motion by Aikman, seconded by Hammann, to amend motion to refer the agreement to Council without recommendation. Motion carried.

The original motion, as amended, carried.

Motion by Hammann, seconded by Sauer, to recommend to Council the approval of the final subdivision plat for Grand Orchard Estates subdivision. Motion carried.

The commissioners took up a draft ordinance that would revise the vehicular access requirements in the B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4, and O-1 zoning districts. Ald. Hammann and Aikman will sponsor this ordinance.

The commissioners took up a draft ordinance to allow two-family dwelling units in the R-1 district, provided the lots that are eligible for construction of two-family dwellings are denoted on the face of a final subdivision plat or certified survey map. Mr. Schwecke reported that the developer of the Westfield Meadows Subdivision has proposed to allow two-family dwelling units on some lots in the subdivision that are zoned R-1 to create greater diversity in housing options. This ordinance amends the code so that two-family units would be allowed as a permitted use, subject to site plan approval, on those lots designated as such on a final subdivision plat or certified survey map. Ald. Hammann and Aikman will sponsor this ordinance.

The commissioners took up a draft ordinance to amend the zoning code relating to the repeal of divisions 12A, 12B, 12C, 13A, 14A, 14B, 14C of article VIII. Mr. Connors reported that this ordinance would extend the date of the “sunset” on these new zoning provisions by two years. Ald. Hammann and Aikman will sponsor this ordinance.

The commissioners took up a draft ordinance that would amend the city’s floodplain management regulations so as to be consistent with the state floodplain management model ordinance of 2004. Mr. Schwecke reported that Rock County had gone through a process to revise its floodplain regulations because of some changes at the State and Federal level. The City would have to incorporate over 30 substantive changes to model its code after Rock County regulations. The consensus was to make those changes.

The commissioners took up a draft ordinance to revise Section 130-270 regarding bufferyard requirements. Mr. Schwecke said this ordinance removes language that would have allowed a bufferyard to be located within an easement on an adjoining lot. Additionally, this ordinance adjusted some of the opacity levels in the chart based on previous Commission’s comments. Ald. Hammann and Aikman will sponsor this ordinance.

City Planner’s Report.
Mr. Schwecke reported a Special Plan Meeting on September 15th for conditional use permit for a new commercial/industrial building on the Davis’ property on Water ST. Additionally, he reported there have been situation where current fencing standards are not helping to make decisions and does not give enough guidance. The consensus was Mr. Schwecke should provide a model ordinance.

Report of the Evansville Redevelopment Authority. None.

Motion by Hammann, seconded Aikman, to adjourn, carried. The meeting adjourned at 10:15 PM.

Prepared by:
James A. Beilke
City Clerk/Treasurer

The Minutes of the Plan Commission are not official until approved by Plan Commission.