Evansville Planning Commission---July 2007

City of Evansville
Plan Commission

Regular Meeting
Monday, July 2, 2007, 6:00 pm
City Hall, 31 S. Madison Street, Evansville, Wisconsin

MINUTES

Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 6:00 pm by Mayor Sandy Decker.

Roll Call. Present: Sandy Decker, Diane Roberts, Mason Braunschweig, Jim Brooks, Gil Skinner, Jeff Vrstal, and Bill Hammann. Staff present: Tim Schwecke and Dan Wietecha. Others present included: Julie Meredith, Tom List, John Willoughby, Tom Cothard, Tony Wyse, Greg Ardisson, Dick Woulfe, Cliff Woolever, Roger Berg, Jeff Farnsworth, Decklin Every, Reverend Robert Garbrecht, Dan Zettelmeier, Jolene Hawkins, and other members of the public.

Approve Agenda. Braunschweig made a motion, seconded by Roberts, to approve the agenda. Motion approved unanimously.

Approve Minutes of June 11, 2007 Meeting. Brooks noted that the public comments for and against the Ver Kuilen/Meredith Tavern CUP had been reversed. Roberts made a motion, seconded by Braunschweig, to approve the minutes with the correction. Motion approved unanimously.

Citizen Appearances. None.

Unfinished Business.

A. Flood Insurance Rate Maps. Schwecke said no Evansville residents had commented to FEMA in contradiction to the proposed maps. It will be about a year before FEMA formally adopts the new maps.

B. Allen Creek Master Plan. Wietecha said property owner interviews would be starting in the next couple weeks. A mid-project open house is tentatively scheduled during the August 21 Redevelopment Authority meeting.

New Business.

C. Evansville Manor Zoning Map Amendment (application 2007-6). Noting that her husband sits on the board for the Evansville Manor and that they own stock in it, Decker turned the meeting over to Braunschweig. Tom List of Plunkett Raysich Architects provided an overview of the project. It includes a separate, two-story building without a basement to serve as a 25 unit residential care apartment complex (RCAC). Access would be off Fourth Street, where the Manor is acquiring several properties. The interior roads have been designed based on comments for truck access from the Fire Department. There would be 1 parking space for every two apartment units which is the industry standard. In answer to a question from the Commission, Cliff Woolever said the new building would have a staff of about fifteen with only three or four on schedule at one time; there is adequate employee parking.

Schwecke noted that if the planned unit development (PUD) is approved it will still go through a site plan approval. The boundary of the PUD can also be amended in the future, as can the development standards in the ordinance. In answer to a question from the Commission, he said that a 0.3 opacity buffer and landscaping standards would be required; those would be more specific during the site plan review.

Braunschweig opened the public hearing at 6:29. Public comments generally in favor of the application included:
Good to see Manor expanding and offering additional variety of housing choices in Evansville.
Good addition for neighborhood.
Support expanding business and employment.

Public comments generally against the application included:
Danger of speeding traffic already in the area.
Need for sidewalk along Fifth Street.

Public Comments included several questions for clarification:
There is the potential for a community-based residential facility (CBRF) in the future, but none is currently planned.
Setback requirements would generally be 30 feet, but could vary in some parts of the irregular shaped lot.
The Commission cannot speculate on any potential impact to neighboring property values.
Employee parking is required in the development standards.
There would be an additional access off Fourth Street.

The Commission noted written comments from Michael LaRue. The public hearing closed at 6:37. The Commission asked about sight lines at the new driveway; it is perpendicular to Fourth Street and the trees are mature with a high canopy. The Commission noted that aside from some traffic concerns, the public had been generally supportive. In reviewing the staff report, the Commission noted the PUD would be consistent with the zoning code and compatible with the neighborhood. Cliff Woolever said that it would not be a traffic intensive development and that employees would not typically park on the street.

The Commission stated that the potential public benefits outweigh any and all potential adverse impacts of the PUD. Roberts made a motion, seconded by Hammann, to recommend to Common Council adoption of Ordinance #2007-7 as drafted based on findings contained in the staff report and on the conclusion that the public benefits of the proposed zoning classification outweigh any and all potential adverse impacts, if any. Motion approved unanimously.

D. Meredith Tavern CUP (application 2007-17). Decker stepped back up to her position on the Commission. Julie Meredith indicated that her earlier plans for a tavern on South Union turned out not financial feasible; she is now applying for a similar no-smoking tavern in the renovated Eager Building. It is the same easy-listening, relaxing, evening-hours concept as before.

Schwecke noted that it is a mixed-use building with apartments on the second floor. There are already several bars in the downtown vicinity. If approved, the conditional use permit (CUP) would still require a modest site plan review. Any future expansion of the business would require a new CUP. The CUP cannot limit the hours of operation, and the business may change its hours in the future. And he recommended approval of the application.

The Commission noted that any noise concerns from live music could be controlled by the landlord through the lease. The Commission said that any secondary effects of a restaurant would be lesser than with a tavern, so any future food service would be acceptable in the CUP. It was noted that because the business partnership had changed; Meredith would need to reapply for a liquor license.

Decker opened the public hearing at 6:53. Public comments generally in favor of the application included:
The renovated Eager Building will be a great asset to the downtown.
Customers can find on-street or public parking like everyone else.
Live entertainment does not necessarily mean a loud band; the atmosphere would still be conducive to conversation in the bar.
There is a mezzanine level between the main floor and the upstairs apartments.
The landlord would have restrictions on noise to protect the privacy and peaceful enjoyment of the apartments and other tenants.

Public comments generally against the application included:
Parking in that block is already limited.
A neighboring bar did not want competition.
The city and state have money invested in the restoration of the Eager Building and need to make sure apartment residents are protected.

The Commission reviewed the public comments and noted that it had to consider the application as a tavern since hours of operation and intensity of live music could change in the future. In reviewing the staff report, the Commission noted it is consistent with the zoning code, and there are already several bars in the vicinity. The Commission was confident the landlord would limit noise and similar impacts on the apartments and other tenants. Meredith repeated that it would be a small establishment with a relaxing atmosphere.

Roberts made a motion, seconded by Braunschweig, to act on the application (not defer to a later date). On a roll call vote, motion approved unanimously. Roberts made a motion, seconded by Skinner, to approve the application based on the findings as contained in the staff report and the conclusion that the public benefits of the proposed use outweigh any and all potential adverse impacts, if any. Motion approved unanimously.

E. Every Comprehensive Plan Amendment #1 (application 2007-13). Decklin Every noted that this application is for the property in the Town of Union; however, the discussion included comments relative to both applications. Every said that his family’s plans to develop the property were not a new idea and showed a 1965 preliminary plat. Schwecke indicated that the request was to accelerate the designation from the Future Land Use map to the Intermediate Land Use map. He also noted that the topography of the site was different from the flat fields that have typically been developed in Evansville; this would be conducive to more housing variety by catering to a more upscale home.

Schwecke reviewed a memo about historical and anticipated growth in Evansville. He concluded that allowing development on the Every property would be within the growth rates needed for the 7000 population in 2025 which the Smart Growth Plan had identified. In terms of orderly development with reasonable availability of utilities, he recommended that if the Commission were to approve the amendment for the in-city applications then it should also approve the southern (but not the northern) portion of the in-town application. He noted that changing the land use designation on the map would not obligate the city to annex the property.

The Commission said this application would encourage faster growth and the Smart Growth Plan had a definite desire to regulate to growth rate. It was noted that there are already four large subdivision approved, providing many opportunities for someone wanting to build a house. The Commission also noted that the Smart Growth Plan was only two years old and any amendments should be fairly few or minor on such a recent plan.

It was noted that the property (actually the adjoining in-city parcel) had been annexed into the city 40 years ago with a plan for it to develop; it preceded the Smart Growth Plan and could be considered inadvertently overlooked during the Smart Growth process. The Everies indicated that they had been absent during the Smart Growth process because of significant health issues in the family. The Commission noted that the walkable neighborhood designation does not require a commercial anchor; it could have some other public activity as its focus. It was noted that any development is going to have some impact on the school, local services, and tax levies; however, the Smart Growth Plan identified a growth rate equal to 69 housing units per year.

At 7:55 the Commission took a five minute recess. Braunschweig made a motion, seconded by Roberts, to approve Plan Commission Resolution 2007-1, Recommending to the Common Council the Amendment of the City’s Smart Growth Comprehensive Plan by Changing the Land Use Designation of the Subject Property on the Interim Future Land Use Map from Agriculture/Undeveloped to Walkable Neighborhood. On a roll call vote, motion was defeated 2-5. Vrstal and Roberts voted for; Braunschweig, Decker, Brooks, Skinner, and Hammann voted against.

F. Every Comprehensive Plan Amendment #2 (application 2007-14). This application is the in-city parcel and was discussed throughout the deliberations on the other Every application. The Commission said that a development agreement could be used to phase the development similar to with the Larson Acres subdivision. The Commission noted that this land predated the Smart Growth Plan with its preliminary map and that the property is within the city.

Decker commented that the 27% growth identified in the Smart Growth Plan and some 700 lots available for development is not a no-growth attitude. The Smart Growth Plan identified continuing growth at its existing rate, with controls to keep it from accelerating.

Braunschweig made a motion, seconded by Hammann, to approve Plan Commission Resolution 2007-2, Recommending to the Common Council the Amendment of the City’s Smart Growth Comprehensive Plan by Changing the Land Use Designation of the Subject Property on the Interim Future Land Use Map from Agriculture/Undeveloped to Walkable Neighborhood. Hammann made a motion, seconded by Roberts, to amend the motion by adding “Whereas, the City has the option of negotiating a development agreement to phase in development of the property over time,” to Plan Commission Resolution 2007-2. Amendment approved 5-2. On a roll call vote, motion, as amended, approved unanimously.

G. Various Comprehensive Plan Amendments (application 2007-18). Schwecke reported that the 39 W. Church Street property is the dentist office the Commission has been trying to correct the zoning since January. The Commission agreed marking the extraterritorial plat review boundary on the Interim and Future Land Use maps would assist extraterritorial questions.

Schwecke reviewed a memo of other suggested changes to the comprehensive plan. The Commission agreed it appropriate for the Interim and Future Land Use maps to show industrial areas in general rather than a refined distinction between light and heavy industrial. The Commission agreed that the governmental/institutional classification on private property was prone to future problems. The Commission noted that the language in the Smart Growth Plan implied a soft line for the environmental corridor but agreed it more effectively treated as an explicit overlay zone. The Commission felt that transportation related information on the Interim and Future Land Use maps provided critical information necessary to the decision-making process. The Commission noted the location on CTH C misidentified on the Future Land Use map. The Commission indicated the use of separate Interim and Future Land Use maps had been a deliberate decision and that the Smart Growth Plan included a written procedure for when and how the switch would be made from the Interim to the Future map. The Commission noted that the maps deliberately lack a specific time reference in order to maintain flexibility in their use. The Commission noted that concerns about development northeast of the city would be limited by the difficulty in providing sanitary sewer there; intergovernmental discussions with the Town of Union could also address some long-term concerns.

Hammann made a motion, seconded by Roberts, to approve Plan Commission Resolution 2007-3, Recommending the Common Council Amend the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Hamman made a motion, seconded by Braunschweig, to amend the motion by adding the following language to Plan Commission Resolution 20007-3: “3. On the interim future land use map and the future land use map, combine the four categories of industrial into one industrial category. 4. On the interim future land use map and the future land use map, only use the government/institutional designation on those parcels which are in public ownership and will clearly remain so for the next 20 years. The others should be classified according to their use. 5. On the interim future land use map and the future land use map, change the environmental corridor district to an overlay district. 6. On the future land use map designate the area north of the city on CTH C as rural residential so it is consistent with the interim future land use map.” Amendment approved unanimously. Motion, as amended, approved unanimously.

H. Future Transportation Map (application 2007-19). Hammann said the Public Works Committee had approved the changes at its April meeting. The Commission noted that the inset showing future by-pass routes needs to be included on the map. Hammann made a motion, seconded by Roberts, to approve Plan Commission Resolution 2007-4, Recommending to the Common Council the Adoption of a New Future Transportation Map for the City’s Smart Growth Comprehensive Plan. Motion approved unanimously.

Preliminary Development Presentations. Schwecke indicated there were no preliminary presentations.

Pending Legislative Proposals.

I. Unified Land Development Code. Schwecke indicated that a phasing schedule is in the packet according to comments from the Commission at its June 11 meeting.

J. Fences. Schwecke noted that the Common Council will have its first reading of the ordinance on July 10.

K. Accessible Housing. Schwecke noted that the Common Council will have its first reading of the ordinance on July 10.

L. Traditional Neighborhood Developments. Schwecke noted that the Common Council will have its first reading of the ordinance on July 10.

M. Residential Design Standards. Schwecke said this is temporarily on hold since it has been listed as a second phase of the unified land development code.

N. Residential Use Standards. Schwecke said this is temporarily on hold since it has been listed as a second phase of the unified land development code.

Rock County Smart Growth Plan. Decker indicated that Rock County has an advisory committee working on their Smart Growth Plan. They have finished with agriculture element and are currently finishing with the issues & opportunities and the transportation elements. The county expects to complete their plan in 2010. The Commission agreed it should stay informed of the county’s project as it progresses.

Flood Insurance/Community Rating System. Schwecke noted that the city could undertake some relatively simple steps to improve the city’s rating in the National Flood Insurance Program. The improved rating would have a lower the insurance premiums for local policy holders. It was agreed that Baker Manufacturing should be contacted as the single largest potential beneficiary.

Site Plan Amendments. Schwecke stated there had been no administrative review of site plan amendments.

Redevelopment Authority. Wietecha had nothing additional to report.

Historic Preservation Commission.

O. Standpipe. Decker said the Wisconsin Historic Preservation Review Board would consider recommending the standpipe for listing on the Wisconsin and National Registers of Historic Places.

Traditional Neighborhood Development Committee. Schwecke noted that the meeting had been rescheduled for Thursday, July 5, at 6:00.

City Planner’s Report.

P. Council Actions. The Council tabled action on the Propst Land Division (application 2007-4).

Q. Code Enforcement. A letter has been sent to Tom and Jan Davis giving thirty days to comply with landscaping requirements.

Adjournment. On a motion by Braunschweig, seconded by Brooks, the meeting adjourned at 9:22 pm.